Nadya Suleman, champion welfare mom
You've read about this slag, no doubt. (Previous posting here.) She is the California head case who used in vitro fertilization to add another eight babies to her collection, already numbering six. She's not paying to birth and raise them, of course. That's what employed (unlike her), taxpaying citizens are for.
The very notion of eugenics — selective breeding to improve the gene stock of the population — is enough to send all good liberals, and not a few of other persuasions, into hysterics. (A word, incidentally, which comes from the Greek for womb. If our campus feminist loons had any classical learning, they'd no doubt add hysteria to the proscription list of politically incorrect terms.)
But our society does intervene in breeding. Only, it's in the opposite direction, dysgenics. We literally pay women to produce babies that they can't support. We encourage the stupidest and most unsocialized to outbreed the responsible, and bill the responsible for it.
California has a reported $40 billion budget deficit. Not even Nadya Suleman is accountable for all of it, but subsidizing the illegals and many legal immigrants, and other programs that operate under the principle "the less you earn, the more you get," are big reasons the IOU State is looking to soak its businesses and citizens to make up the gaping hole in the budget.
Oh, wait, I forgot. There's a stimulus package coming up. States will be held off from bankruptcy through money borrowed by the federal government. I'll bet Nadya is already planning her next baby binge.
UPDATE 2/14
Mickey Kaus writes in his Slate blog:
"Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley note that the anti-welfare-reform provisions in the stimulus bill aren't as bad as I'd feared. They're worse. They attempt replicate the fiscal mechanics of the old welfare (AFDC) "entitlement," but with a bigger incentive to welfare expansion:
The very notion of eugenics — selective breeding to improve the gene stock of the population — is enough to send all good liberals, and not a few of other persuasions, into hysterics. (A word, incidentally, which comes from the Greek for womb. If our campus feminist loons had any classical learning, they'd no doubt add hysteria to the proscription list of politically incorrect terms.)
But our society does intervene in breeding. Only, it's in the opposite direction, dysgenics. We literally pay women to produce babies that they can't support. We encourage the stupidest and most unsocialized to outbreed the responsible, and bill the responsible for it.
California has a reported $40 billion budget deficit. Not even Nadya Suleman is accountable for all of it, but subsidizing the illegals and many legal immigrants, and other programs that operate under the principle "the less you earn, the more you get," are big reasons the IOU State is looking to soak its businesses and citizens to make up the gaping hole in the budget.
Oh, wait, I forgot. There's a stimulus package coming up. States will be held off from bankruptcy through money borrowed by the federal government. I'll bet Nadya is already planning her next baby binge.
UPDATE 2/14
Mickey Kaus writes in his Slate blog:
"Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley note that the anti-welfare-reform provisions in the stimulus bill aren't as bad as I'd feared. They're worse. They attempt replicate the fiscal mechanics of the old welfare (AFDC) "entitlement," but with a bigger incentive to welfare expansion:
"For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC."Tell me that bit again about how President-Messiah Obama would be "moving to the center" once he was elected?
7 comments:
And she's apparently muslim on top of it. Bringing 14 new little muslims into our society, who will grow up to agitate for islam.
There are truths that people just generally don't want to face because they're awkward and unpleasant. And we are a society of soft wimps at this point so we gloss over them and just don't think about them. Kind of like Scarlett O'Hara: I'm not going to think about that now.
And one of them is this: democracy is only appropriate as a form of government for a homogenous people that identify with one another closely. Otherwise it becomes a breeding contest to see who can make the most children and import the most of their people and thus vote themselves into power, where they can change the rules as they like.
It makes no sense at all for historic Americans - white people who identify themselves as Americans - to allow other peoples into the country. Muslims like this woman, as well as Hispanics have higher birth rates than we do. It is a mathematically guaranteed way to dispossess ourselves from our own nation. Do we want to be ruled by Muslims or Hispanics? Of course not. But that is exactly what the current trends will guarantee. It's so dismally stupid.
I guess I figure that every era has certain ideas that shape the actions of a nation and affect its destiny. And those ideas either help the nation flourish or they tend to weaken or destroy it. And unfortunately, for reasons I don't really understand, we got stuck with egalitarianism/liberalism/socialism/progressivism as the predominant idea of our last century. We are going to have it burned out of us the hard way. I hope some remnant of my people will survive. I think they will but I'm not sure...white Americans are only 3% of the world's population and the subjects of rampant envy by most of the rest of the world, who'd like to see us humbled or destroyed. It's not going to be easy.
And it's not easy to watch morons like this muslim woman flaunt our stupidity. Really, how incredibly stupid does a people have to be to PAY for their civilizational enemies - who otherwise would have no chance of beating them in a fair fight - to outbreed and dispossess them?
My God!, that picture looks like something out of "Aliens" or "Species."
Mark,
Psychologists tell us that some people are passively suicidal. They can't bring themselves to jump off a bridge, but they behave in subtle pathological ways that ultimately lead to the same end. They eat or drink too much, drive recklessly, get in fights, are accident prone, or find other ways to hasten their demise.
Our culture seems passively suicidal on the same principle. It's as though on some level we've decided the struggle for life as free people isn't worth making any tough choices or sacrifices for, or even bothering to think things through. Why? I don't know because I don't feel that way. Maybe 1914-18 and 1939-45 destroyed our will to live, and since then we've just been looking for excuses to bring down the curtain.
Terry,
If she is a Muslim, she has spawned a crew of aliens.
Rick, yes, birthright citizen aliens. The folks at CAIR must be ecstatic. It is, after all, a central tenet of CAIR's mission to empower so-called "American Muslims."
I also see, by googling "octomom's" name, that she already has a webpage established where people are encouraged to donate to her cause.
Mark cuts to the core truth by writing:
-- "Democracy is only appropriate as a form of government for a homogenous people that identify with one another closely."
-- "Otherwise it becomes a breeding contest to see who can make the most children and import the most of their people and thus vote themselves into power, where they can change the rules as they like."
We Americans who retain a love for the Providential founding of this Republic need to face facts -- we ourselves are already the walking Dead. It may not forever be that way but in the near term it is.
In my opinion, a fatal mistake was made in giving women the vote in 1920. I say that hesitantly because I love and respect our women and I don't like the idea of them being treated as something less than full human beings. But there are things that are true whether we like them or not, and one of those things is that the personalities of women and men taken as a whole are different. Women's concerns tend to center around a socialistic family mode of thinking, while men's tend to be more concerned with holding territory and resources against competing tribes. I think this is why almost nowhere in the history of the world was there a country which gave women an equal political voice in the management of the affairs of the state. The characteristic worldview of women is such that they just don't "get" defense and war the way men do.
Having women running things might be fine in a world of women. But our civilizational competitors are not run by women, but by men eager to gain advantage over us.
And I think there is a psychological component to women that desires to yield to strength. What a catastrophic trait for the leadership of a nation to exhibit! And since women are more than half the population of the country, that means our leadership is heavily influenced by these female impulses to avoid conflict, nurture, cooperate, talk, and generally show feminine weakness in the face of masculine aggression like that shown by the muslim civilization.
Female political power is really only feasible for a short period when a civilization is at its peak of strength and has no serious competitors on the horizon. It's decadent. Again, that's not nice to say - and there are plenty of very smart, very aware women - but I think that taken as a whole, it is true of women just as there are truths about men taken as a whole.
Respectfully, I don't think we're the "walking dead". I understand what you're saying, but what is dead is America as we knew it - a nation founded and formed by and for Europeans who colonized the land they won from the indigenous people. The end was foreordained as soon as America stopped being a nation of a particular people and because a "proposition nation."
But that doesn't mean WE'RE the walking dead. It just means the entity called "The United States of America" is no longer going to serve the purpose of providing a nation for our people to flourish in. It appears it will be taken over by competing, alien peoples. Of course without us they will quickly turn it into just another nation like the failed nations they left.
The whole thing is that enough liberal white people have to have the truth of the unworkability of a "proposition nation" shoved viscerally in their faces so they wake up. Those of us who aren't liberals whites have to gird ourselves to survive the transition period between when things become really unpleasant (as they have for South African whites since they gave blacks the ability to vote them into oblivion) and the time when a critical mass of liberal whites wakes up to the reality of what egalitarianism and multiculturalism means for themselves and their loved ones.
Some hardcore cases will never change their minds. But all we need is a critical mass to wake up. At that point, putting it bluntly, what we have is a civil war in some form that ends up with a new nation for our people. Again, putting things bluntly: I am thankful that our main competition so far for control of the country is blacks and latinos, because quite frankly they are no competition at all in a straight-up civilizational battle. My concern is if we get too many Indians and Asians here. That could be very unpleasant.
I realize this kind of talk is inflammatory and kind of ugly. I don't like it myself but I feel compelled to point out what seems to me to be evidently true.
Post a Comment