Bill's Comments

I was taken to the airport today by a driver that immigrated from Russia 30 years ago. It was a very interesting conversation. He understands what the US needs to do in the world and has a far better grasp of what the US stands for than politicians, the press, or intellectuals. What's even more important, is he understands it is a moral not a political issue.

He deserves his citizenship. I wish I could say the same for many of the rest of us.

The primary drive in all of biology is to reproduce. It is actually more fundamental than the drive for food and water. I once had a tomcat that was killing himself from being on the prowl until he was neutered. He would not eat or rest, but spent all his time looking for females in estrous.

The species that most successfully reproduces becomes dominant in an ecological niche. Up to the time of humans, animals became successful through evolution from one form over time to a modified form more suited for the niche being filled. Humans, however, changed biological modification for cultural modification, and with that conquered the globe, filling every available ecological niche on land. Rather than adapt their bodies, they adapted their culture to protect them from the environment and to enhance their survival chances.

Nature is harsh and wasteful from our perspective. It will create many more living creatures than will survive in order to arrive at the best-suited to survive. At the molecular level, genes are shuffled so that no two offspring have the same genetic components. Create enough combinations and something better will turn up. In addition, add mutations at some relatively low frequency, and over long periods of time, many new species will be created.

But even humans are subject to evolution. The evolutionary cycle is longer because the average reproduction rate is slower. The human reproductive years are from around 12 to 50. In human evolution, that means that a woman might have a child every year to two years for 38 years, or between 19 and 38 children. When there was little or no civilization, the mortality at all ages was such that probably only 25% of them survived to reproduce. This might also explain why women have menopause around 50. That is the oldest a woman can be and still raise a child under primitive conditions to adulthood. (Until civilization, 50-60 was old.) Women that produced after age 50 simply did not have viable offspring.

Up to the last fifty years, civilization has been an ally of nature, leading to reduced mortality and greater survival of the species. The command to be fruitful and multiply was common to all cultures in one form or another, and the rise of civilization increased the survival rates. From this, mankind covered the planet, accept Antarctica where a much more advanced technology was required to arrive and survive. Also common to all cultures was the idea of a lifetime mate. It is only in recent times that divorce has been looked upon without disparagement.

Long before man came on the scene, Nature had created courtship rituals. These could take many forms. Some were displays, birds seem to be the most common examples of this. Some were contests of strength, mostly common to mammals, though some birds will attack interlopers. Regardless of the form, the purpose was to convince a female that the winning male was the best mate. Humans also developed courtship rituals, and due the greater complexity of the human mind and behavior, the rituals were more complex. Also since it would be for life, they lasted longer and were more gradual. The idea was to be able to call it off with the minimum of lost time and energy if it would not work out. That has also appeared to change over the last fifty years but mostly it seems in the last ten or twenty.

There has always been a group in society that looks upon procreation as a bother, nuisance, and for other people. Generally, that group fancies themselves to be intellectual, and they think that having children interfers with their intellectual pursuits. [Given that many intellectuals of history had children, I think it is more that they are selfish and simply do not want to be bothered with anything except their own ends.]

Since procreation was always a possible consequence of sexual activity, it was discouraged until after marriage. This did not mean everyone abstained, but generally there was more fussiness in chosing sexual partners, since there was always a risk one might have to marry them.

Fifty years ago this all changed. Reliable birth control became available in the form of The Pill. Suddenly the consequences of sex were no longer operative. One could have sex with whomever and not worry about procreation. It did not happen overnight, but courtship changed and became more a matter of deciding on a one-night stand or not, rather than a life-time partner. Instead of becoming friends then falling in love or falling in love and having sex, people had sex then tried to sort it out afterwards.

In the meantime, the anti-reproduction intellectual crowd suddenly could preach their ideas of sexual license to a receptive audience. Teens and twenties with hormones raging were very receptive to the idea that they could have sex without the consequences. Since Roe vs. Wade there is the additional idea that a woman doesn’t even have to be responsible enough to take birth control, they can get an abortion if a baby happens.

As the commercial used to say, “You can’t fool Mother Nature.” Two trends have occurred, the birth rate is falling to below replacement levels, and we are seeing a young population that has no concept of responsibility. In the meantime there is evidence to me that Nature is still operating at the unconscious level. And Islam and immigrants are reproducing at almost twice the rate of the native-born citizens.

Conservatives are already pointing out that Roe vs. Wade could have made the difference in the last two elections—that the number of deaths from abortion has reduced the liberal ranks. Overall, birth control even among those who don’t believe in abortion, has reduced the birth rate so that we now have too few people to support the Ponzi scheme of Social Security.

The trend is even more pronounced in Europe. My son says that in Italy the birth rate is so low that the government is offering bribes of 1000 Euros for a couple or a mother to have a child. Children are so rare in Italy that any child is made over and fussed over in a restaurant. The cause is that people are deferring having children until their thirties when they are established in jobs and already have a high standard of living. In the meantime they live with their parents, and get married in their thirties or even forties. By then, it is too late to have more than one or two children.

There was a time when children were born regardless of financial circumstances. The parents took on the obligation because it was what was right. The sacrifices were made as necessary and it was part of being an adult. Children learned to live without and to appreciate small things. They learned patience and self-reliance. They also waited to grow up to get certain privileges. In today’s world, children wait for nothing and have all the privileges that they ask for. There is no point in growing up; there is nothing left to get. With a population growing up self-centered, there is no incentive to have children, and every inclination not to. After all, a child will mean less for themselves.

As we observe Western society slowly dieing for want of responsibility and from narcissism, I see an attempt of Nature to make one last stand against the norm. As sex has become divorced from the consequences, blatant display of sexuality has become the norm. From the suggestive clothing has morphed into the totally revealing. Young girls wear skin-tight knit tops and jeans and even pre-pubertal girls have taken to wearing “hooker” clothes. Some would ascribe it to peer pressure, but where did the peer pressure come from in the first place? From the desire for sex, which ultimately comes from the imperative to reproduce. I think much of the apparent promiscuity of young women today comes not from so-called sexual freedom as much as the frustration of incomplete sex—sex that does not procreate.

Just as species died out as their environment changed beyond what they were adapted for, so will Western society die out, not because the environment changed, but because society changed beyond what the environment required.

UPDATE: 6/26/2008: Today in Jewish World Review Today, Jeff Jacoby has an excellent essay on this same topic.

Find out Which Marvel Superhero Are You at LiquidGeneration.com!

Thanks to the Maximum Leader for the link.

One of my friends recommended Vince Flynn as an author to me. I knew roughly kind of story line I would find. The first book I purchased was in the middle of the series, "Memorial Day". The very first book Vince Flynn wrote, "Term Limits" was not in the series he developed. The second book, "Transfer of Power", was the first of the series. Between the two books, he changed most of the major characters and definitely his premises. The books have all the sophistication of a Dirty Harry movie and are action adventures. They are a good read on an airplane.

The main premise of the series is that when dealing with terrorists, political correctness, legalism, and formality is out of place and even dangerous; the only solution is force directly and specifically applied, e.g. kidnapping and assassination, if necessary. I'll return to this idea.

The attempted premise of the first book was far more difficult to present, and in fact, I think he did not make his case--that corrupt politicians that had caused the death of others through their corruption and political dealings deserved to die, and that their murder was justifiable. One of the main characters in the book was constantly troubled by it, though he ended up being part of the cover-up of the people that took out the corrupt politicians and their hirelings.

Even though Vince Flynn makes his villains truly despicable, I still thought that assassination of an American citizen, no matter how corrupt was wrong. It is a direct negation of the principles of the Constitution. There appeared to be an attempt to justify it with the principle that when a government became intolerable and destructive of freedom, revolution was permissible. Armed revolution is proper when one is under the control of a police state. (Arguably, the Colonies were a version of a police state. Read the Declaration of Independence.) However, as long as political and legal redress is available, no matter how difficult, it must be used when dealing with US citizens. We extend certain Constitutional rights to criminals, they must be extended to corrupt politicians as well. Our system is founded on justice not vengeance or retribution.

Now let's go back to the issue of terrorism. One of the current political/legal theories of dealing with terrorism is that it is a criminal act and that the perpetrators have the rights of criminals. Vince Flynn confronts that head-on and first points out that this is WAR not criminal action, and second, that these are NOT citizens of the US. I am in agreement with both of these positions, and I want to expand a bit more on the second.

There seems to be an implied theory in some legal circles (including the ones that prevailed in the latest Supreme Court decision on retention of enemy combatants) that anyone subject to US jurisdiction is entitled to all the legal rights and privileges of US citizens, whether they are US citizens or not. This goes hand-in-hand with the current positions of the same people on illegal immigration. But why should non-citizens have the same privileges that citizens have? What have they done to earn them? Why should they bother to become citizens if they can have all the benefits? It destroys the meaning of being a US citizen, if non-citizens have the same rights and privileges. I don't believe in some woozy, feel-good idea that all men are brothers. We aren't until shown otherwise. If some jihadist is wanting to behead me, the last thing I would do is talk and embrace him. The first is to shoot him.

Apparently the first misconception these people have is that it is not war, and second that the enemy is rational. Our justice system is designed to work for those who agree to certain underlying assumptions--that the truth will be found out, that there is a common sense of right and wrong regardles of behavior, that errors can be corrected by incarceration. Terrorists have none of these concepts, and to try them in a court of law is to make a mockery of law. It is applying law where it has no application. A terrorist has only one goal, to win by intimidation and the use of murder is the preferred method of intimidating. A terrorist may have a specific target, but cares not one bit about who else is killed along the way--the more the merrier. Criminals are very specific in their targeting and do care about potential collateral damage, as it makes it much harder to get away with the criminal act and makes punishment more severe when caught.

The current Jihadist terrorists do not have any thought patterns in common with us. They don't care about families, children, the helpless. In fact, they consider many of them just that many more targets. They believe they will be more feared, the more ruthless they are. The thought of death does not deter them--in fact they believe it will lead them more quickly to their reward. They also do not compromise--only on the surface to slow their opponents while they prepare the next move.

Given that we are at war with the Islamic Jihad, then whatever it takes to win that war is proper--kidnapping, assassination, spying, as long as the targets are the activists and not the innocent bystanders. Collateral damage should be minimized, but when unavoidable should not be a stopping point. This is where pragmatism shows its ugly head--appropriately. There are situations where the death of a few can prevent the death of many. Despite the horror of the death of innocents, what happens when preventing the death of a few leads to death of many, and is directly attributable to that prior act?


These questions and others are what are handled in the series of novels by Vince Flynn. He has created a novel version of the conservative world view, much as Hollywood has created a movie version of the modern liberal world view. The answers he provides to the questions are pragmatic not ideological, but they do resonate in a conservative psyche.