Feminism is Still Fascism Devoted to Marxism and the Destruction of the Family

History written in a kinder, more honest time will not review the American feminist and the feminist movement at large well..  It will rank as one of human  history’s most perverse preachments causing the most blood thirsty human sacrifices…..out murdering the 75,000,000 slaughtered by the Marxist regime of Mao Tse Dung, and 50,000,000 of Marxist regime of Josef Stalin.  

The American female has been made worse  psychologically and  socially, whose role in life has slipped from the admired to the profane.   Feminism was advanced by lies and intimidation, the usual weapons of the back alley politics of American Marxists and their allies who in democratic societies can never survive in  conversations and reportings in the fresh air and sunlight of proper intellectual  intercourse. 

As with the politics  of president Barack Hussein Obama, stealth, disingenuousness, duplicity and back room dealings mask the primary goal  of any Marxist believer in a free, democratic society, the drive to gain power to rule without obstruction.    A Marxist uses truth only if it helps achieve power.   Like aggressive Islam, Marxism will marry with any group, again to secure  its hold on power.

The following article was written by Corey Roberts and has been given the title, “Paradise Lost:  The Bitter Pill of Global Feminism”.  It is a misleading, indeed an inappropriate title.  The title should read……..

“Feminism’s Victory in China…The Glorious Final Chapter of American Feminism:  Free at Last!”

“Most persons are aware of China’s one-child policy. But few fully understand the indelible mark this human rights travesty has left on the soul of the Chinese people.

Recently professor Jing-Bao Nie of New Zealand published a remarkably candid appraisal of this policy, which represents the most ambitious demographic experiment ever conducted in human history.

China’s Birth Control Program through Feminist Lenses catalogs in chilling detail how the Chinese population-control agenda coerced hundreds of millions of women to use birth control, compelled over one-quarter of the adult female population to obtain an abortion, and ensured the forced sterilization of 37% of all married women.

The current toll is 200 million unborn babies, and counting. This moral calamity is compounded by sex-selective abortion, a widespread practice that has created a deficit of 40 million baby girls, giving rise to an impending demographic time-bomb.

Ironically, this modern-day eugenics program was sold to an unsuspecting Chinese citizenry as a tool to “liberate” and “empower” women. “No words can describe the physical pain and emotional suffering” that arise from such policies, Dr. Nie concludes.

Feminists have long been obsessed with the “problem” of child-bearing and child-rearing, viewing such activities as a baleful obstacle to female fulfillment. (As a father of three, I can state unequivocally that child-raising has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. But then, I’m not a feminist.)

Feminists are so consumed with the issue to the point of advancing totalitarian policies. In 1974, feminist matriarch Simone de Beauvoir advocated this final solution:

No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children.…Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.

Government-mandated population control and proscriptions on stay-at-home motherhood are abhorrent to women. But that didn’t stop the feminist Left from seizing on an even more radical solution: excise the traditional family. Former Ms. Magazine editor Robin Morgan made no attempt to disguise her movement’s extreme agenda:

We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.

But Morgan faced the same hurdle as the Chinese one-birth propagandists: How are we going to sell such a loopy scheme to women?

To answer that question, Morgan and other feminist theorists turned to the proto-revolutionary Karl Marx himself. “What is the present family based on?,” Marx rhetorically asked in his 1848 Communist Manifesto. He answered, “The bourgeoisie sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production.”

By relying on a Marxist class analysis, feminists transmogrified men from dedicated providers and protectors into bourgeois oppressors, fingering proletariat women as their unwitting victims.

Robin Morgan led a decades-long campaign to revile men. “I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act,” she once expounded.

Eventually, a range of epithets became synonymous with the male persona: patriarchal knuckle-dragger, male chauvinist pig, deadbeat dad, wife-beater, and more. Men who objected to these put-downs were derided as humorless wusses or insensitive to the needs of women.

Some of these stereotypes, inaccurate as they were, made their way into laws such as the Violence Against Women Act. Multi-billion dollar bureaucracies such as the Office of Child Support Enforcement were erected, based on the unfounded presumption that dads are fundamentally irresponsible and would seek to escape the financial obligations to their children.

Men eventually discovered that vague renditions of domestic violence such as “annoyance” or “apprehension” provided the basis for legal actions that eventually stripped them of their homes, their families, and their assets. No wonder millions of men vow they will never wed.

Speaking at a Mexico City conference last year, Arie Hoekman of the United Nations Population Fund fervently embraced the news of family break-down. Hoekman boasted to the group that “we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure [and] the rise of new values centered in the recognition of fundamental human rights.”

Throughout history, the family has been the most cherished and protective social institution for women. And this is what the feminist Left seeks to revamp, forcing women away from their children and onto the public dole.

As Charles Dickens presciently penned in A Tale of Two Cities, “Every revolution eventually turns on itself.”

Further comment:   We should never forget Marxism is a religion, much like Islam,  in which no morality is necessary in its drive for authoritarian control over people.   It is the result that becomes “Holy”.

How Much of America Is Obama Surrendering to Russia?……..

……..and what guarantees does this graduate student president have that his gifts will not come back to haunt  us?

How many of you think that this semidictatorship replacement to the good old USSR, run by members of its SECRET POLICE, one being Vladimir Putin, are to be trusted?    Do you think this “Babe in Toyland, college student president has ever read a book about the Soviet Empire?   He studied Saul Alinsky all right, and, I must report, it shows.

Here is an article at Telegraphs.co.uk, by Nile Gardiner, “President Obama is Pushing for a Monumental Surrender to Russia.”

“The Obama administration has an impeccable track record of caving in to Russian demands, as part of its controversial “reset” policy. Last year, it threw key US allies Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus, ditching plans for Third Site missile defences in deference to Russian opposition. It is now planning another surrender to Moscow, by pressing for Senate ratification of the new START Treaty in the lame duck session of Congress.

Instead of allowing the newly elected Congress to vote on the treaty, the Obama administration is trying to ram New START through without proper debate. No major treaty has ever been forced through Congress in a lame duck session.

There is mounting opposition in Washington to the New START Treaty, which would significantly weaken US security by undermining America’s ability to deploy an effective global missile defence system. Dozens of senators, as well as several leading likely Republican presidential candidates are opposed to the Treaty, including Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. As Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has warned:

The START Treaty could severely weaken America’s ability to defend our people and our allies against missile attacks from nations like Iran, and we need all of the facts on how this treaty was agreed to… The newly elected Republican senators have signed a letter asking our leadership to postpone debate on START until they take office in a few weeks and have ample time to review the details. Americans didn’t vote in November to ram through the Obama administration’s wish list this December.

As part of its campaign to woo opponents of the Treaty, the Democratic White House has claimed that Ronald Reagan would have backed it, a simply ludicrous assertion. As Reagan’s attorney general Ed Meese, and Assistant Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle noted in The Wall Street Journal, the Gipper would never have backed an arms control agreement that encumbered “the pursuit of advanced ballistic missile defense technology”:

There are many reasons why this treaty falls short of those negotiated by President Reagan. For one thing, its verification regime is inadequate. For another, it gives the Kremlin an unwarranted influence over the structure of our nuclear deterrent. Most important, it will almost certainly reduce our freedom to deploy vital defenses against ballistic missiles.

Moreover, the administration is asking a lame-duck Senate, dominated by a party that was rebuked at the polls by the electorate, to vote for this major arms-control treaty, in contravention of the settled traditions of our country—a tactic Reagan surely would have deplored.

Simply put, the New START Treaty is a staggeringly bad deal for the United States, and an extraordinarily good one for Vladimir Putin’s increasingly hostile and authoritarian Russia. President Obama needs to respect the will of the American electorate and allow the new Senate to vote on the Treaty, and fully scrutinise and debate the details of an agreement which, if ratified in its current form, will dramatically undercut America’s global missile defences. The White House is pressing for another monumental surrender to Moscow which will only strengthen the hand of a key US adversary.”

Tags: Barack Obama, Jim DeMint, missile defence, New START, Ronald Reagan, Russia

Top Bloviator, Tom Friedman, New York Times Best, Bloviating As Usual

One of the best sites I rely on to discover the issues of the day and those who write about them,  is realclearpolitics.  One, as always, has to become acquainted with those who write sensibly and the bloviators, who as in real life, are in the majority.  Most bloviators write out of  leftwing sites, those at Slate, Huffington Post, anything related to Moveon.org, Daily Kos and such.  Even in this mire of the intellectually  formless  married to Marxism and rebellion,  one can sometimes find a writer who expresses something beyond programmed hate.   Go, yourselves, to the leftwing blogsite of your choice.  How would  you describe the anger in their aggression against conservatives?

One of the most popular and successful bloviators at realclearpolitics is Tom Friedman at the New York Times.   He is displayed nearly every week. 

His article in today’s  New York Times has  been given the title, “We’ve Only God America A”.   One should know it is highly unlikely Mr. Friedman selected the wording for this  title.  Yet, he opens the opportunity for it in his first paragraph of his pensive effort.  Mr. Friedman has feelings about America these days:

“Former President José María Figueres of Costa Rica has a saying I like: “There is no Planet B” — so we’d better make Plan A work to preserve a stable environment. I feel the same way about America these days. There is no America B, so we’d better make this one work a lot better than we’ve been doing, and not only for our sake. When Britain went into decline as the globe’s stabilizing power, America was right there, ready to pick up the role. Even with all our imperfections and mistakes, the world has been a better place for it. If America goes weak, though, and cannot project power the way it has, your kids won’t just grow up in a different America. They will grow up in a different world. You will not like who picks up the pieces. Just glance at a few recent headlines.

The world system is currently being challenged by two new forces: a rising superpower, called China, and a rising collection of superempowered individuals, as represented by the WikiLeakers, among others. What globalization, technological integration and the general flattening of the world have done is to superempower individuals to such a degree that they can actually challenge any hierarchy — from a global bank to a nation state — as individuals.

China has put on a sound and light show these past few weeks that underscored just how much its rising economic clout can be used to warp the U.S.-led international order when it so chooses. I am talking specifically about the lengths to which China went to not only reject the Nobel Peace Prize given to one of its citizens — Liu Xiaobo, a democracy advocate who is serving an 11-year sentence in China for “subversion of state power” — but to intimidate China’s trading partners from even sending representatives to attend the Nobel award ceremony at Oslo’s City Hall.”

Wait a minute… ….Who is making America work a lot worse “than we’ve been doing, and not only for our sake”?  Who is making America weak?  Why?

Who in the past two years especially has made America weaker as a world leader, as a United Nations leader, as a leader of the Western Hemisphere, as an economically sound entity, as a legally in charge sovereign state, as a nation secure  within its border, as a nation secure in its psyche, religion, education, and in its unity of purpose.

Who in the past two years has brazenly in full public view, sneaked around corrupting its easily corruptible politicians  to buy votes to pass an unAmerican, even  antiAmerican health industry  legislation, highly unpopular among this Democracy’s people, 2700 pages of the unreadable, and told to the bold who dared to  ask what was  in the legislation, was told one would have to wait until the bill is passed before we, the people would  find out how good the bill would be  for us.

We have never had an American president whose father figure was  a “Goddamn America” preacher or who has engaged Communists and communist admirers,  in his  Federal Government’s administration and attacks the American dream calling it “a poverty of ambition”!……

America A,  the America of our great democratic traditions, has been under attack and compromised by these Tom Friedman bloviators for nearly 50 years.  The country has been seriously damaged and weakened.   The Tom Friedmans  leach off of the country’s wounds, while their leader, the president and his courts prepare the salt.

Untangling the Jungle of the American Courts with “Loser Pays, Everyone Wins!”

Theft and embezzlement are rarely perpetrated upon the poor, for it would gain little profit.   The victim must possess something of value which can be embezzled or stolen whatever the type.   Big Business and  Big Labor are the two American institutions possessing Big Money.   In the days of Big Leftwing Government , Big Labor has become  worshipped, and therefore protected as Big Religion, leaving only Big Business to be the flesh and blood for all those predators, Marxist and otherwise to their thirst for blood.  

In the good old U.S.A. the lefties in Law and Government use the American court system to rob from the accused and enrich the accuser, no matter how foul and vulgar the accusers are……including the hyenas of the American tort attorney industry……an industry populated by pirannas.  These attorneys are universally Democrats who  financially and literarily heavily finance the Party.

If there ever was a good old boys (girls) network of theives, this is it.

Yet, there is one even richer (despite its debts) “Big Daddy” in America than Big Business….much richer…..the sky is the limit richer “Big Daddy”.    The Marxist gang at the American Civil Liberties Union is the  champion hyena pack of the Left preying on money-strapped public school districts, bullying them, threatening them, extorting from them, doing to them whatever is necessary to force these and other groups  similarly vulnerable, to advance Marxist dogma.

In other circles throughout the nation the American courts are used to distribute wealth as corruptly as is needed to enhance the pockets of those ‘barristers’ interested in the American dream.   It is a tax nearly every American business and American conservative public or private entity must face.

How about Governor Perry’s suggestion referred to in today’s Wall Street Journal….”Loser Pays, Everyone Wins?”

“Republicans picked up 16 governorships and at least 675 state legislative seats in November, and some of them are using this new running room to get creative.   One Governor out of the gate early is Texam, Rick Perry, who wants to extend his state’s  impressive tort reform record.

Most notably, Mr. Perry is proposing a British-style “loser pays” rule, which would require plaintiffs to pick up the legal costs of their targets if they lose their suits.  Almost all of America’s  economic competitors follow a similar standard, but trial lawyers and their Democratic codependents have blocked states from making this revolutionary improvement to U.S. civil justice.

Americans now spend more on tort litigation than they do on new cars.   the ccourts are choked  with such high crimes as the $54 million pair of pants that a D.C. dry cleaner allegedly ruined in 2007.  A procedural  reform like ‘loser pays’ to deter junk lawsuits would make the legal system less of a drag on the ecohnomy and less of a political tool for redistributing the wealth.

Mr. Perry’s proposal isn’t the pure version of loser pays, in which the losing party-plaintiff or defendant-is responsible for the winner’s attorneys fees.  Instead, it adds an extra disincentive for the tort industry to bring suits that Texas law   already defines as ‘groundless’.  the lawyers and firms that file such claims would in almost all cases pay the penalty, a downside they’d have to weigh against their chances of personal enrichment.

At the same time, to speed compensation to genuine victims, Mr. Perry would create new legal channels to expedite smaller claims (below $100,000).  Judges would also be barred from creating cause of action from the bench that haven’t been approved by the state legislature.”

Nothing like sensible creativity.   For more of the editorial hook up to today’s Wall Street Journal.

I am part of a group of four guys who run a landscape company here in the Twin City Area.   About six years ago a worker driving one of our trucks was run into purposely by a gal as our driver was taking a right turn at a corner with two right turn lanes.   Witnesses agreed with our driver that the woman intentionally drove into the driver’s side of our vehicle.  Several months later we were notified by our insurer that she was claiming to be severely injured in the neck.   The insurer also informed us that this was the fourth “case” in four or five years this woman had made such claims against others and had won settlements from the insurers.  

We didn’t hear further from our own insurer until the next year, when we noticed our insurance rates had significantly increased.   When we called to inquire why, we were told the company preferred to settle rather than incur the legal costs.  They admitted the woman had a history of this kind of extortion and had profited greately from it.   They did not want the publicity of  ever being in court!

Condoleezza Rice Slam Dunks Katie Couric in Interview About Cherry Picking on Iraq

Here she is, Katie Couric, not quite a dunce, not quite a reporter, prepared to corner and attack  Condoleezza Rice on the Bush administration’s decision to depose Sadaam Hussein in 2003. 

But the Bush Lioness was much too powerful, too mentally exercised, too quick and commanding to be bagged.  Ms. Rice never gave this CBS spokeswoman to have another lefty sentence or word to offer.  

(My thanks go to the bloggers who showed this impressive video at PowerLine.)

Comment:  It’s no wonder every day fewer and fewer viewers pay attention to anything Ms. Couric has to ask.

Dick Morris Reports on Israel-Iran Conflict……Who has time on their side?

The big question in the Middle East these days is: Who has time on their side?

As Iran races to develop its nuclear bomb-making capacity, we have always assumed that time was on the Ayatollah’s side.  The Iranian strategy of delay and obfuscation in its negotiations with the West seems to have succeeded in buying Teheran the time it needs for its spinning Centrifuges to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb.  The possibility that Iran may acquire advanced anti-aircraft systems from Russia – even though the Kremlin denies it – seems to make the military option of an air strike on Iranian nuclear plants harder and harder for Israel.

But on the West Bank and Gaza, time has always seemed to be on Israel’s side.  Time to build settlements, time to expand those already there, and – most important – time to wait out Obama’s four year term in office all work for Netanyahu.Then the worm turned!  The Stuxnet worm, a Windows-specific computer worm that spies on and reprograms industrial systems.  Iran has acknowledged that its nuclear program – the target of the worm – has been damaged significantly.  In fact, some speculate that the worm may take a year for Iran to work through.  But, since this is the most important use of cyber warfare thus far in history, nobody can really know its full impact. When one considers the worm in the context of a cruder form of secret war – the targeted assassination of three Iranian nuclear scientists in recent weeks, the agents of the Mossad may have been very busy!  And effective!  Who knows?

And the United States has finally gotten focused on real sanctions against Iran.  Doing what Bush should have done but didn’t, Obama and Hillary (yes – words of praise) have gotten the international community to sanction Iran where it hurts by undermining their capacity to produce oil, reducing their access to gasoline, and curtailing their ability to borrow money.

When we worked for Netanyahu as he approached his election as prime minister last year, we were both deeply impressed by his understanding of the danger an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose to Israel.  “It is 1938,” were his prophetic first words when we met in a Manhattan hotel to begin our work.  1938.  The war, the holocaust, the slaughter of the Jews seemed to be approaching.

That’s why Bibi’s seeming willingness to play the clock has been puzzling.  By waltzing Hillary and Obama around the dance floor of Middle East negotiations, an on-again, off-again settlement building policy, and making noises about peace without actually giving anything up, he appears to be playing for time.  And, given Obama’s and Hillary’s inexperience and incompetence in first demanding a settlement freeze and then deciding it had been a mistake to do so,  Netanyahu is dancing rings around the pair.  

But wasn’t time on Iran’s side?  Maybe not.
    
Perhaps what Bibi is doing – we have had no contact with him since his election – is influenced by the progress he sees in undermining Iran’s nuclear program on the one hand and in keeping Obama to a single term on the other.

Netanyahu watches American politics very, very closely.  He probably understands that Obama is inimical to Israel’s interests and likely fully grasps his pro-Arab tendencies.  But he also realizes the magnitude of the defeat inflicted upon the president in the midterm elections and sees the probability of his replacement by a staunch Republican friend of Israel in the offing.

So between the worm and the Tea Party, he may figure that time is on his side, after all.    

And it may be!

Gas Prices Going Up-Up-Up Where’s the Media? Why Don’t We Produce Our Own Energy?

The following comes from Ed Driscoll at Pajamas Media:

“As Ron Futrell writes at Big Journalism, “Pain At The Pump, Where’s The Media?”

The media has finally figured out that gas prices are going up, but most stories in 2010 that deal with Pain At The Pump ignore Obama like they don’t even know he’s president. Mr. Teflon can’t be touched by this messy little inflation thing going on right now (of course, it’s not just gas prices either.)

When Obama entered the White House gas prices averaged $1.81 per gallon. Evil Bush/Oil must’ve done something to make those prices fall – but there’s no time in the 10 hours a day that local TV stations do in their newscasts to mention this little fact. They’re out of space in the New York Times to provide context for this story.

Of course, Obama’s reaction has been to close off-shore drilling and restrict more US land to drilling. The Bush actions of allowing more drilling and increasing US independence led to those low prices of 2008. Yes, policies in the White House can make a difference and are making a difference today to the rising prices.

Gas prices have nearly doubled under Barack Obama, meanwhile the media watches from the sidelines and complains without pointing out where this problem lies. Do you think they don’t know, or do you think they are protecting Dear Leader?

Just for the record, in June 2008 Obama said that he had no problem with higher gas prices, just that they had to rise with a “gradual adjustment.”

Welcome to Obama’s America and the gradual adjustment of gas prices. Things seem to be right on schedule for this president and the activist old media acts sits there and wonders why all of this is happening. Poor Obama having to have to deal with this, I’m sure he’s working hard to help the average American family. I heard him say so in his last speech.

Fill ‘er up!

Why would the media complain? the Washington Post, the New York Times and Tom Brokaw of NBC each asked the Office of the President Elect in December of 2008, in a coincidence of events that would make the JournoList members proud, to raise gasoline taxes to soak the average commuter while the economy was at its lowest ebb.

And in a related development, legendary geological engineer Robert Redford at the Huffington Post yesterday to cold and poor: Drop Dead:

The truth is we don’t need this coal. The developers claim they have a contract with a Utah utility, but they won’t disclose which one. It’s questionable whether local utilities even have the need for such sizeable quantities of coal. Instead, rumors indicate that a lot of the coal will be hauled to a West Coast port for shipping, possibly overseas. If the company is so confident there is a market for its product, it should name its buyers.

The West has a long history of outside companies extracting local resources, selling them elsewhere, and leaving nearby communities to clean up the mess often at taxpayer expense. No matter what they might tell you, there is no reclamation plan that can return on open pit mine to a natural, wild state. Once that untamed spirit is gone, it’s gone for good

Some places are simply too special to industrialize. Bryce country is one of them.

I’d love to hear where Redford would be OK with digging a coal mine — perhaps he could run the location past President Obama and Harry Reid.”

Comment:  Take a look out some window where you can see a major freeway or other throroughfare.  Check out the number of private vehicles you see.   Then turn to the trucks, the semis all the way down to the Ford Rangers.   Washington is planning to increase your gas tax and the tax on businesses by 15% or more….and you don’t think prices are going to go up an up an up on what is being transported?

Keep this also in mind.   If you have bigotries against the wealthy, how about being more about which wealthy you should objects to……How about showing teeth at the loony Hollywood Left, and those Romantic Widows Turned Left now that their hard working husbands are gone……and all the other Gates and Buffet types who fund the  Greenie Groups, the wild environmental hysterics.    These are the ones who fight our America’s effort to be free of the oil purchase from the Middle East which funds the tour of duties of these peace-loving Islamists who go around blowing up the world in the name their love of Death for their peace-loving Islam.

All of the resources are available to the United States; available within its own domain.   Tens of thousands of jobs can be created.   Wealth no longer feeds our enemies.

Only Obama Democrats keep America from returning to fiscal integrity, both in thought and in deed.

Why don’t we produce our own energy?…..Because the Democrats and their Marxist allies prohibit it.   When will this tyranny come to an end?

Where Do Leftists Come From…..? Are They Born to Be Progressives?

David Solway at Pajamas Media asks:

“For a very long time now, I have been turning over this question in my mind: What is it that makes a leftist? Where do leftists come from? How is it possible that sentient human beings, endowed with reason, memory, and foresight by their Creator, or by the evolutionary demiurge, can zealously adopt a political position so contrary to both good sense and common sense — and what is more, remain glued to its premises in the face of all contradictory evidence? For despite the miserable failure of socialist experiments the world over and from time immemorial, the determined leftist does not budge from his ideological sanctum and will invent every conceivable, or rather inconceivable, excuse to validate the soundness of his principles and justify every subsequent social and political miscarriage these principles bring about.

Here we may have come upon the real explanation for the leftist and liberal orientation in the human mind. Since it is so not amendable to the lessons of experience and persists in opposition to the indisputable verities of political life, it must owe its vigor and longevity to a different chemical architecture at the very source of its engendering. Socialism is likely the product of a shadow biosphere and may have taken root in the halomonadaceae family of bacteria, from which it evolved into such notable, arsenic-based life-forms as Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, George Soros, and even Barack Obama. Lounge liberals and lesser creatures like Frank Rich of the New York Times, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, or Aluf Benn of Haaretz would merely have lower concentrations of arsenic in their DNA.

We can go further. Extrapolating from these fascinating facts, the orientation in question may hypothetically derive from some unknown, prehistoric meteor shower carrying alien molecular arrangements to earth, bio-morphs capable of absorbing huge amounts of toxicity. It is indeed possible, we are told, that the original microbes “absolutely need arsenic to survive.” These chunks from outer space might be fragments of Saturn’s moon Titan, where arsenic is one of the predominant constituents. A discovery of this magnitude unveils new ways of thinking about so flourishing an order of quasi-human life as the confederacy of the left, which I propose we classify as the family vita sinistra.

We live in truly amazing times, vibrant with unexpected discoveries. Such a mutation, if that is what it is, would go a long way to clearing up the once-insoluble mystery of the existence of the liberal-left among us. Some will no doubt find it comforting to learn that we are not alone. Extra-terrestrial life has always been here and SETI can now turn its gaze earthward to examine the galactic specimens we have long wondered about. The shadow biosphere, which in the course of evolutionary time gradually developed into a pervasive and anthropocidal psychosphere, is still a theory. But it accounts for much that continues to puzzle us about the various noxious manifestations of hominid-type behavior.

Of course, there is the argument from nurture, but this only begs the question and moves the cause one notch back in an endless antecedent series. Who nurtured the nurturers? Then there is the argument from desire or what the ancients called conatus, often based on a faulty reading of the world. One recalls the philosophical debate that raged for centuries between Duns Scotus and his followers on the one side and the school of Thomas Aquinas on the other. Scotus postulated that the will conditions the reason, in other words, desire seeks its goal first and the mind subsequently proceeds to vindicate its decision. Aquinas contended that reason commands the will, that is, the faculty of purified intellect posits the good, and desire afterwards strives to achieve it. Leftists and liberals are, on this interpretation, earnest Scotists, wanting something very badly and then abusing their mental powers to defend their error.

Only slightly more convincing is the argument from nature. Researchers have discovered a “liberal gene,” a dopamine receptor tagged DRD4, that predisposes people to the left-liberal side of the ideological continuum. A study of 2000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health showed that under certain favorable conditions “people with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults.” As this thesis is advanced by scientists from the University of California (San Diego) and Harvard University, a saving degree of skepticism would be in order, especially as these scientists correlate the liberal gene with a predilection for openness and novelty, two factors not markedly associated with the leftist mindset.

The answer to the enigma, however, may lie in the realm of molecular biology. A recent groundbreaking discovery suggests that there may well be a “second genesis” for life on earth, predicated on a microbe that has replaced the element of phosphorus necessary for life with the lethal element of arsenic in its structure, thus “break[ing] the unity of biochemistry.” Moreover, according to NASA astrobiologist Mary Voytek, the microbes “have the arsenic in the basic building blocks of their makeup,” implying the existence of a “shadow biosphere” on the planet.