Did the Death Penalty Have a Positive Effect on Civilization?

Well, this is certainly a very un-PC article.  I’m not sure what I think about this, especially from a Christian perspective, but it does make me think about things in an entirely new way.

If there’s one thing that unites wealthy Leftists, it’s the need to pretend they are compassionate.

And there are few better ways of doing this than campaigning against the death penalty.

Increasingly, Leftists take advantage of modern technology to do this: Activist groups like the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty have created a virtual cottage industry geared toward virtue-signalling on the death penalty. They use their websites to direct the bleeding hearts to the next execution site, so they can launch a protest rally.

Cutting-edge research, however, reveals just how fantastically ironic this is. It seems that without the death penalty there’d be no internet, no television; in fact, very little civilization.

The first scholars to develop this king of all Left-triggering ideas were Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost and the late University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending. They published their landmark research in 2015 under the title Western Europe, State Formation, and Genetic Pacification in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.[PDF]

It was a truly ingenious argument.

When Europe became Christian, the death penalty was abolished. Right up until the beginning of the Middle Ages, people were left to settle their own disputes by fighting each other or demanding, from the state, that the murderer pay a fine for killing their relative. But, as Frost and Harpending put it, the Church gradually came to accept that, the “wicked” should be executed “so that the good can live in peace.”

With biblical justification, more and more crimes became subject to the death penalty. By the High Middle Ages, every single felony (any crime serious enough to have traditionally warranted the confiscation of property) was met with the hangman’s noose.

Those sent to the gallows were almost always high-testosterone young men prone to violent crime. In fact, Frost and Harpending calculated that one percent of the male population were executed every generation throughout the Middle Ages. And another one percent were killed at the scene of the crime or died in fetid prisons awaiting trial or execution. So two percent of young men were eliminated every generation.

And because they tended to be young, this process meant that they had fewer children than if they hadn’t been executed. Thus, they would have passed on fewer of their genes.

It’s here that Frost and Harpending perceptively draw their conclusion. Capital punishment must have changed the nature of European personality—by, in effect, culling out the psychopaths.

Read the rest here

Advertisements

How Trump Pushed “the Hippies” Over the Edge

John Nolte writes at Breitbart about all the recently uncovered government corruption and being not surprised.  What he does find surprising is that the children of the 60’s have turned into what they so despised in their youth.  Perhaps, just like young liberals today, they did and do lack any real convictions and so shift with the times — reacting emotionally and never thinking rationally.

None of that, however, is surprising. Government is corrupt, especially the federal government, most especially the unelected bureaucrats in the intelligence community. After living through Watergate, Iran-Contra, Billary selling the Lincoln bedroom, no WMD in Iraq, and Barry weaponizing the IRS and running guns into Mexico, I am well aware incompetence and corruption are the government’s default positions.

Here is what I never thought I would see…

The children of the ’60s — you know, the hippies — and their ideological offspring in academia, politics, and, most especially, the media, are now not only okay with a sitting president’s weaponizing the intelligence community against a rival presidential campaign; they are all rolling over like whipped dogs to believe everything the intelligence community tells them, most especially when it is coming from the CIA — the CIA! — and the FBI.

Basically, Trump has driven the hippies and their offspring so crazy they are not only A-okay with the CIA’s spying on American citizens, totally cool with FBI spies infiltrating a rival campaign, and feeling warm all over about wiretaps, unmasking, and lying to federal judges, they do not want any of this investigated.

The other day, Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame was on CNN fuming over the fact that there will now be an investigation of the Obama administration, the Department of Justice, the CIA, and the FBI, after it was discovered they are all guilty of spying on the political rival of a sitting president.

Carl freakin’ Bernstein does not want the watchmen watched. Carl freakin’ Bernstein is swallowing every treat being fed to him by the CIA — the CIA! — and the FBI. Carl freakin’ Bernstein does not want an investigation, does not want to learn anything more than what he is being told (by the CIA!), and does not want the public to know anything more.

And if you look across the vast horizon with the rare exception of an Alan Dershowitz and Glenn Greenwald, all the hippies are siding with and swallowing whole everything told to them by the same CIA that secretly bombed Cambodia, siding with and swallowing whole everything told to them by the same FBI that spied on Rev. Martin Luther King.

After the civil rights movement, the best thing to come out of the ’60s was a healthy skepticism of our national intelligence apparatus and a  vigilance against its abuses. The era of the unquestioning ’50s was finally over. But now, because of Trump, all of that has vanished. The hippies have become the squares, the round haircuts, the unquestioning white bread, middle class, Ward Cleaver 50s dads who blindly salute their G-Men.

Brilliant Scientific Breakthrough Solves Climate Change!

Well, not really, but they’d like to think they’re helping.

This article from the BBC, Turning carbon dioxide into rock – forever, covers the recent breakthrough in Iceland of being able to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, dissolve it in water (basically like a giant “soda machine” — thus says the interviewed scientist), then pump it deep into the earth where, after coming in contact with basalt, it solidifies after about 400 days.  You can read the article if you like, but this little summary pretty much covers it (minus the hand-wringing about “climate change”).

Iceland receives glowing praise for creating 100% of its electricity from “renewable” sources.  Well, lucky Iceland, they’re sitting on an area that it well suited for geothermal production  — or maybe not so lucky later on if the whole county is blown to kingdom come by a gigantic and newly active volcano.

They do admit that this method of removing CO2 has one little problem, other than requiring being sited over major basalt deposits, it requires massive amounts of water to capture relatively small amounts of CO2.  There are a couple problems they didn’t mention that occurred to me: Where does all the energy needed to run such a large industrial process come from?  And, who is paying for this?

And… why is it so urgent to return CO2 to the earth that was once in the atmosphere long ago?  I know in theory that more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the climate to become warmer.  But, the Earth has been much warmer in the past (and much colder).  All those evil fossil fuels came from once living creatures and plants that had extracted the said CO2 from the atmosphere during the times in which they lived.  If sea levels do rise due to “global warming,” say goodbye to low-lying areas and current beach houses, but so what?  Human beings trying to stop the planet from changing is similar to the smaller scale efforts to stop shorelines from changing and islands that are basically sand bars from eroding away.  As sad as it seems to see things destroyed, how much effort should people put into preventing natural processes?

I am all for preserving our Earth’s natural beauty and not wantonly squandering and wasting resources, and seeing other humans disregard and destroy natural wonders is sad (and honestly makes me feel a tad sympathetic for the environmentalists who apparently want to bring about human kind’s extinction), but how much power do we really have?  How wise is it to spend so much time, talent, effort, and presumably also money and energy to transform CO2 back into rock?  All for the likely futile efforts to freeze time and keep our planet from changing, to preserve it in the state we have known.  All the hysteria about “climate change” seems very ignorant of Earth’s history and how nature actually functions, especially with regards to forces like weather, wind, water, erosion.  They seem to either have never lived near a body of water or are incredibly unobservant.  Nature’s constant quality is Change.

A Brave Woman

Moira Greyland is a very brave woman to have written this bookThe Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon (especially considering when asked how she’s doing, she says “I am not good”)I do not think I have the stomach to read the book.  Reading about the book is hard enough.  LifeSiteNews interviewed Ms. Greyland (Read the whole thing here)

This section deals with a very un-PC view of homosexuality and its genesis, sheds some light on the whole Milo episode, and illustrates how critical it is to protect children (and how incredibly evil this whole thing is).

LifeSite: The homosexual movement has a long history of association with organizations and groups that are sympathetic to pedophilia or promote it outright. Your father was a homosexual activist and an open advocate of pedophilia. For decades the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” (NAMBLA) marched in homosexual “pride” marches, and major homosexual organizations, like the International Gay and Lesbian Association, used to have NAMBLA as a member. Do you see the embrace of pedophilia as a natural outgrowth of the homosexual movement?

Moira Greyland: In my father’s book, Greek Love (J.Z. Eglinton, 1962), he explored at length the fact that pedophilic and pederastic relationships are the historical norm, and peer-to-peer gay relationships are a modern phenomenon. Where I completely deny my father’s contention that pederastic relationships do anything positive for young men, I do believe that nearly all gay men were initiated in this fashion as boys by older men.

Attempts to sanitize these “initiations” of younger boys by older men are ongoing, including in the recent movie “Call Me By Your Name” which Hollywood gushed over, despite its appalling content.

Since the reality of gay culture depends on these initiations, there are only two choices: keep the reality of the genesis of a gay identity secret, or yank it out of the closet and risk the outrage and hatred of the general public.

Here is the trouble: screaming “homophobia” at anything which has a problem with homosexual conduct will only go so far.  As soon as our children are endangered, and their seduction praised, the torches and pitchforks rightfully come out.

After all, this is the Big Secret, and the truth behind a gay identity.  Father-son porn is the number one topic of all gay pornography.  Why is this the actual reality?  In male nature, there is the need to pursue, to vanquish, to conquer.  This is much easier with a young, vulnerable, hairless and helpless male.  They can be manipulated into adoring an older male, putting up with darned near ANYTHING for his love and approval (read: fathering) and they submit.  Always in male homosexual relationships, there is the top and the bottom, the giver and the receiver, and these roles are predicated on age and the ability to project masculine dominance.

This is the conclusion I reached, not only from knowing far too many young boys seduced by my father, but also reading the words of former gay men like Joseph Sciambra and Robert Oscar Lopez.

Male homosexuals know, and count on the fact that a young man who does not have a present, protective father in his life will be much easier to seduce than either a masculine boy who obviously has a strong father, or an older man who might well beat or kill them for a sexual overture.  They seek out boys who are unsure or effeminate, precisely because of those qualities.

How can they persuade those they persuade?  Boys tend to be perpetually sexually frustrated, and know that vanishingly few girls will go along with their advances at that age.  Predatory male homosexuals take advantage of this knowledge, and offer porn and intoxicants to lower the inhibitions of their target.  Once the sexual assault has taken place, even involuntary arousal on the part of the male victim is used as “proof” that the boy is actually gay.

This attitude assumes that being gay is a physical, inevitable reality which other gay men can “see.”  But the truth is that the first sexual experience will usually create an indelible impression, a longstanding change to a male fantasy life, deliberately imposed.  These raped and molested boys are not “gay,” they have been forcibly imprinted with a sexual act meant to permanently alter their fantasy life.

Claiming the involuntary arousal suffered by the boy “proves” they are gay is like claiming that bleeding as the result of a stab wound proves the victim wanted to be stabbed.

In any case, the raped boy is destroyed three times.  Once by the betrayal of the sexual assault, even if they end up going along with it, once by the permanent alteration to their fantasy life, and once by the forced imposition of a “gay” identity which is made to seem inevitable and indelible.

Without pederastic relationships, there would be no adult gay men.  But as it is the Big Secret, don’t expect any admissions about this.  When Milo joked about his own initiation at thirteen, he was demolished in the press.  Shortly thereafter, he admitted on video that he actually had been raped, and it actually was a horrible experience.

It is no joke. When I see a man who identifies as homosexual acting out in a flamboyant way, I see the thirteen year old boys in my house screaming with rage: “I meant to do that!  You did not hurt me, I am no victim, and you will not own me, you BASTARD!”

 

 

Alfie Evans and the Death of Britain

The tragic case of Alfie Evans, similar to that of Charlie Gard, illustrates the abuse and massive over-reach of Government power and control over people’s lives in Britain.

How anyone with any conscience (or the ability to think things through) can do anything other than condemn what happened and recoil in horror and disgust at the details surrounding this case baffles the mind.  If the once great nation of Britain crumbles to dust and ruins, is overrun by barbarians never to recover, it will have gotten what it deserves.  Britain as a nation has killed its soul.  I pity the believers left living there.  But where could they go?  The rest of the world is following (or preceding) Britain on the road to hell.

One can almost understand how materialistic atheists can support such things as killing innocent children as to it is compassionate to relieve society of the burden of suffering, imperfect people and if they think of the victim at all, it is to commend themselves for sparing the person “unnecessary” suffering and pain.  However, these people have no excuse for not understanding what precedent cases like this set for government control of people’s lives and personal freedom and how that could affect them in the future — apparently along with their souls and consciences, these people’s brains have also atrophied through lack of use.  The atheists do not fear God because they do not believe in Him, but what about the Church leaders and lay people who supported the hospital and government’s choices for little Alfie?  If I were them, I would be trembling in fear for my soul.  But UK Bishops defended the decision of the hospital and government, and also removed the priest who was ministering to Alfie and his family, and then apparently ran the Italian priest out of the country!  (See: Priest Denied Permission to Attend Alfie’s Funeral)

Many articles have been written about Alfie Evans.  Here is just one:  When the State Condemns a Disabled Child to Death

 

Imagine your own beloved child was lying in a hospital with a mysterious brain disease. Should you, as the parent, be allowed to decide whether to continue treatment for your son or daughter? Or should the state have the power to overrule you and cut off life support over your objections?

The vast majority of Americans say the final decision should be left with parents. That’s because, under our system, the purpose of the state is to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty. But in Britain, it seems, the state has the power to trample life and liberty and condemn a disabled child to death.

That is precisely what the British High Court of Justice did in the case of Alfie Evans, a little boy who suffered from a rapidly progressive terminal brain disease. Doctors at London’s Alder Hey Children’s Hospital concluded that further treatment was futile and asked the court — over his parents’ objections — to order the removal of his ventilator. Alfie’s parents pleaded for permission to transfer him to Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome, where doctors had agreed to take over his treatment at no cost. Pope Francis had arranged free medical transport, and the Italian government had granted Alfie citizenship to facilitate his transfer. A hospital in Munich had also offered to relieve British doctors of the burden of caring for Alfie.

But the court ruled that it was in Alfie’s “best interests” to die. Doctors had told the court he might “be able to muster just a handful of breaths and survive just a few minutes if ventilation were completely stopped.” In fact, he kept fighting to live for five full days without life support. A phalanx of police officers was posted outside his hospital, holding the child hostage in order to ensure that his mom and dad did not try to take him away while the death sentence was carried out.

This is, quite simply, tyrannical. It is one thing for a judge to decide that British taxpayers should not have to bear the cost of what doctors in its national health service have concluded is futile treatment. Under a single-payer system, resources are limited and care is rationed (which is why we don’t want socialized medicine here in America). But where does a British court get the right to deny the child life-extending treatment abroad when someone else is willing to pay for it? Who gave the British state the right to determine what kind of life is worth living and for how long?

Diabolically, High Court Justice Anthony Hayden actually cited the pope in justifying his decision to end Alfie’s life, quoting out-of-context a speech Francis gave in which he warned against “the temptation to insist on treatments that have powerful effects on the body, yet at times do not serve the integral good of the person.” But Francis also declared in that speech that decisions about whether to continue treatment “should be made by the patient.” Nowhere did he say such decisions should be made by the state. And indeed, the pontiff made clear he stood with Alfie’s parents, tweeting, “I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted.” For the British High Court to twist the pope’s words to justify killing a little boy is monstrous.

The culture of death is on the march across Europe. CBS News recently reported that Iceland was on the verge of “eliminating” Down syndrome, not by some medical miracle but because the country’s abortion rate for Down syndrome babies is close to 100 percent. Now, with Alfie Evans and previously Charlie Gard, British courts have ordered the death of disabled children over the objections of parents.

That is barbaric. Nikolaus Haas, a German physician who had offered to take over Alfie’s care, told the court, “Because of our history in Germany, we’ve learned that there are some things you just don’t do with severely handicapped children. A society must be prepared to look after these severely handicapped children and not decide that life support has to be withdrawn against the will of the parents.” Hayden declared this “inflammatory.” In fact, the comparison is spot on. London survived the Blitz to stop the advance of a regime bent on the eugenic killing of, among others, the handicapped. Now Britain has such a regime anyway, by self-imposed judicial fiat.

Unless Americans are vigilant, it is only a matter of time before it happens here.