The parasites of dying civilizations.

I think we all know what parasites are. . . those who drain the lifeblood out of a something. Those who are the dependents, the takers, the trouble makers. . . they are the parasites of a civilization. The attitudes and actions they show strongly hint to me that they know they don't have an equal role or are comfortable with their place in the world as a dependent. There is abundant evidence for the stages of grief in the behavior of certain dependents. . .just as I spoke of those with defects or handicaps evidencing. You can read more about that in my post: Abnormalities of the body and the connected grief stages.

My next post called: Should dependents be given the choice . . .? discussed whether it was even humane to let a completely dependent person reproduce (whether young, mentally young, or otherwise unable to cope with parenthood), even if they are technically healthy. . . or if they should be strongly encouraged or helped to be temporarily or permanently "fixed" until they are independent and/or healthy. This is something we would feel is humane if it were done to a dependent pet, yet people have issues with doing it to people. This "eugenics" was discussed in detail, and how it is not sustainable to allow a dependent "parasite" to reproduce, because in the end it will hurt or kill it's host, and then they will possibly both die.

 Most nice folks are afraid to admit to the most obvious group of dependents or parasites of civilization, lest they are accused of being politically incorrect or worse.  . .Well personally I'm sick of stepping on egg shells!! I don't think it helps anyone to lie about the affair of things, as it literally cannot continue much longer. This generation is the tipping point.

 Our country spends money it doesn't have to support these parasites! How much?

While needing welfare isn't everything, and even the well off can go through hard times and temporarily need it, I am talking about those who rarely get off welfare. So the stats about who needs it to live, on a regular basis are a sign of being a parasite, but even this is only a part of a big picture. There is a lot not consistent about the stats of welfare, and I suspect it has something to do with under reporting. The census knows that welfare stats are unreliable, but they don't tell you is that about their polls. The fact is, while we know the number on welfare, relying on self reporting to know about who the people are is not reliable, as some people are not honest. . .there are apparently 10 MILLION people on government programs, that deny it! 

Whatever the case, as I stated in my last post, those who are dependents for their own life and care, honestly should have no right to reproduce, much less have a higher rate of reproducing.

 I will now go on to show you many stats that prove, I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who are the biggest drain on this country? (And why it is not actually their fault. . .) And this is not to judge as I personally have briefly been on food stamps, WIC, Medicaid and never made enough to be considered middle class.

To put it nicely, I will quote the surgeon general, "African Americans are significantly overrepresented in the most vulnerable segments of the population." 

One small sign of this is welfare dependence.

 So, 29 million people are on welfare, with 39% white: 11,661,000, and 38% black: 11,362,000

According to Wikipedia:
- US population: 313,544,041
- White: 72.4%: 227,005,885
- Black: 12.6%: 39,506,549

Math time:

Whites: 11.661,000 / 227,005,885 * 100 = 5.13%
Blacks: 11,362,000 / 39,506,549 * 100 = 28.75%

That means the total percentage of all white people in america on welfare is: 5.13%

While the total percentage of all black people in america on welfare is: 28.75%
Stats on who is staying on welfare, not just needing it for a few months or a year, and how this has changed with admixture is a lot more telling.


Add to that the fact that 80% of blacks are by average 20% white, it is still double the rates for blacks to be dependent on welfare, even though the blacks are mostly 20-50% white now. . .clearly their genes are making it harder for them to fit in and survive in a white culture. . .as again the Surgeon general shows.

"More African Americans than whites or members of other racial and ethnic minority groups are homeless, ["Proportionally, 7 times as many African Americans as whites are homeless."] incarcerated [1 in 10 are in jail and 1 out of 3 will be in jail in their lifetime], or are children in foster care or otherwise supervised by the child welfare system." 
Source

Then there are those on foodstamps.
Percent of population on Food Stamps by Race:
White: 8.6%
Black: 43.8%
Hispanic: 17%

Source: USDA, US Census Bureau, US Dept of Agriculture.

Even black websites like This one would admit that even given their small population percentage of 12.3 of the country, 27.4% of the poorest are blacks. While there are 38 million total black people in the United States, of the 46 million people of all races who are living in poverty, 11 million of the poorest are blacks. And "Of the 11 million blacks that live below the poverty line, 51% live twice below the poverty line or earn less than $10,000 in annual income. Therefore, poor blacks are disproportionately the poorest of the poor. . . "

As if that isn't sad enough, even considering the large amount of mixed blacks who (while even only half or less black, always claim to be black because of the "one drop rule") are doing very well for themselves in America, Black unemployment rate is almost twice the nations average, at 15.8% (The whites alone are 6.8%), and that is not including those Blacks who refused to do the poll (a lot some believe), and the large number of homeless blacks!

Even when a black person does get a job though, The average income for blacks is also lower than it is for other races who work in the same industries. Why is this? No doubt, just a clear cut case of unfair racism, right? According to Wikipedia, "Education affects wages because it allows access to occupations of higher status that offer greater earnings."

Even today, with blacks being FORCED to get an education at the tax payers expense, only 82% of Blacks having even graduated. . .The 2-7% that went on to college may have been done a diservice, as they were only placed there many times because of Affirmative action, which obviously did (unfairly) benefit minorities. The "points" system awarded more points to black kids, and actually subtract points from others. Poor, white, young men were, and are, severely hurt by affirmative action! Consequently it was banned in many states, and college enrollment for minorities went down immediately. That is because "affirmative action in college admission offices is the equivalent of adding 150 to 310 points on an SAT score for a minority". (Which does them no favor in the end as they will usually be in over their heads, and quite before graduating.)

Wikipedia claims that "the decrease in the black-white wage gap from the 1940s through the 1970s was caused by the narrowing of the education gap between blacks and whites." Elsewhere studies say, "In a comparison study between the 1999-2000 school year and the 2009-2010 school year, roughly 36 percent more whites received their Master’s degrees, while both black and Hispanic rates of graduation more than doubled." Considering how low it started, and still is, doubling the rate of graduated minorities is not impressive.

(Why are the Blacks seemingly seeing such a rise scholastically?. . . that is for another post.)

Of course blacks will tell themselves that the wage and employment gap is simply prejudice of the 87.8% white bosses. . .when in fact, employers want to be fair, but Blacks are usually not as suited for the job. This is not just because of education either. . .

There is also the racial disparity in IQ. According to the stats in the link, the purest Blacks, from the San/Bushman to the less specific Sub Saharan African, have the lowest IQ's in the world. While the more mixed races have higher, and the Europeans and purest whites (IMO) the Ashkenazi Jews, have the very highest! Many now believe that genetic variation in average levels of intelligence (IQ) are at the root of racial disparities in job or wealth achievement.

A very controversial and best seller book was written called the Bell curve, which was based on compiled info from a study conducted by the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics which tracked thousands of Americans taking a battery of ten tests used when applying for entry into the armed services.

The Bell Curve argues that:

1. Intelligence exists and is accurately measurable across racial, language, and national boundaries.
2. Intelligence is one of, if not the most, important factors correlated to economic, social, and overall success in the United States, and its importance is increasing.
3. Intelligence is largely (40% to 80%) heritable.
4. No one has so far been able to manipulate IQ to a significant degree through changes in environmental factors—except for child adoption—and in light of these failures, future successful manipulations are unlikely.
5. The United States has been in denial of these facts. A better public understanding of the nature of intelligence and its social correlates is necessary to guide future policy decisions.

 In other words, the low rate of blacks in the work place, as well as their low wage, and inability to get to college is not racism, as some would like us to believe, but to do with their low IQ. 

Blacks are just (predominantly with rare -and half white- exceptions) ill suited for most white collar jobs and employers know it.

Employers also look for family men (or woman), as they see a person who is married and has dependents as more trustworthy, mature and likely motivated to be stable. So blacks in general show a perceived instability and lacking character by their very high rate of broken families (72%). 

Another things Employers generally look out for as red flags would be signs of entitlement like: long term dependence on welfare, disability or foodstamps. . .so that completely rules out the majority of blacks.

Even if an occasional black is financially better off then most, meaning smarter then most unless it's because of their sports ability. . .certain characteristics of Blacks in general make them undesirable to a boss. Things like:

• how they speak "Ebonics", 
• have a smaller head/brain and consequently lower IQ. 
• gaudy clothes, jewelry, nails and hairstyles
•  high testosterone, all blacks in college have 15% higher testosterone then whites, those are the educated exceptional blacks. . .(Testosterone when high makes a person feel unrealistically proud of their looks, skills, and race in general. . . leading to entitlement. ) 
• a criminal record. (Of course if they are in jail, they wouldn't need a job, as the tax payers pay them to live there too.) 

Of course the last is a biggie. . .so here's some stats on Black crime:

Roughly 12% of the United States population is black. Yet in 2011, black Americans
constituted 30% of persons arrested for a property offense, 38% of persons arrested
for a violent offense. . .and 28% of juvenile arrests.



 "One contributing factor to the disparity in arrest rates is that racial minorities commit
certain crimes at higher rates. Specifically, data suggests that black Americans—
particularly males—tend to commit violent and property crimes at higher rates than
other racial groups."

Source

Considering the stats on how many Blacks and Hispanics there should be in that group (less then 13% of blacks, 16.9% of Hispanics) the chart should be even more shocking! 

If you have ever gone to an area with a large populations of Blacks in a city in the United States (or otherwise) you will see the direct link with blacks, poverty and crime. Check out the percentages and numbers of blacks in different cities around the country at the end of this link to Wikipedia though, and see what connections the evidence leads you to.
Source
The most dangerous cities have one thing in common, blacks.
In fact, according to the stats, the higher the Black population, the more likely the city will be crime infested, and going bankrupt from policing and supporting all those blacks on welfare! 

Detroit is the top of the charts for Black population (at 82.7% black now) and last year this time it filed for bankruptcy. Even before Ford laid off so many as of late, Detroit's high and middle class (mostly white) tax payers had been run off from the high crime rate and race riots. Of course it is claimed on most mainstream sites like Wikipedia that whites were thought to be just as much at fault as the blacks for the murders, looting and destruction of the many riots, but I strongly suspect with what we know of stats now, that it was far from equal. Whatever the case, if something isn't done, in one generation or so, from what we see in populations like Detroit, Chicago, Miami, LA, etc. the rest of the country will be destroyed. Check out the youtube video here for more proof of it though

Compassionate liberals will tell us that: "The problem is not among the black population as a whole; rather, it is due to a 'small sub-culture that glorifies violence and lives and dies by the gun.' It is the gang culture, characterized by widespread criminality, tribalistic warfare, through-the-roof unemployment, extremely high rates of out-of-wedlock births , widespread welfare dependency, and nihilistic art typified by 'gangster rap.'"
Source

They will pull out comments like:

“That. . . is because of racism within the legal system and the fact that more blacks live in poverty and social deprivation!”

Wrong on all three accounts.

#1. Racism in the legal system.
The reality is that politically correct law enforcement bends over backwards to avoid racial profiling, as shown by the shrieks of horror by various senior policemen following the new Arizona law requirements to merely check the legal status of suspects. Meanwhile courts in America go to great lengths not to disadvantage black or Hispanic defendants, and in fact, many minorities sue over claiming unfair treatment from racial profiling. . .something that while not always right, I think it's quite evident, to be very justified!

#2. Poverty

Whites often blame poverty for the crime of blacks, because the ones getting into the trouble can't keep a job, if they ever get them in the first place. . .for reasons we previously discussed. If poverty was the key to all the crime though, you would expect to see whites committing 16 crimes for every 10 committed by black people, because statistically, there are that many more poor whites. However, outside the whacky parallel universe, as portrayed by the media, that is not what we see.

#3 Social deprivation

 If the crime was because of how they are treated badly, and they were getting revenge or in anger or jealousy they were getting money from the whites, I could see that. . .but those who are hurt most by the blacks are not mostly the whites, but those around them. (Their own families and race.)

"Blacks of all ages are more likely to be the victims of serious violent crime than are whites. . .The greater risk could not be attributed to socioeconomic differences or differences in area of residence. " 
Source

 94% of Black woman who are murdered were close to the Black man that killed them.
Also every year roughly 7,000 blacks are killed, and 94% of the time, it's by another black.

Don't get me wrong, stats on Blacks in all white countries show the same patterns, just as Africa, and that is that overall, comparatively, Blacks respect whites, while they disrespect, violate and abuse their own.

Nonetheless, Blacks are justifiably feared as violent and volatile by clued in whites. Actually, whether consciously or sub consciously whites use racial profiling to protect themselves. Racial profiling unfortunately is somewhat useless though with so many being half white, intelligent and peaceful, though having the same dark color as those with such primitive behavior.

 Whether fair or not, because of instinctual racial profiling, Blacks are also poorly perceived as mates. Likely at least partially because of the high testosterone in blacks, the very thing that makes blacks bad moms, and black men incapable parents, and more likely to rape then whites.  In men testosterone raises because of a woman being fertile, and an ovulating and fertile white woman will instinctively and subconsciously fear black men. This is very justified, as the rate of black on white rape is 90 times that of the white on Black rape!
Quoting the Surgeon general on how blacks feel about being negatively perceived:

"African Americans have also developed a capacity to downplay stereotypical negative judgments about their behavior and to rely on the beliefs and behavior of other African Americans as a frame of reference (Crocker & Major, 1989). For this reason, at least in part, most African Americans do not suffer from low self-esteem (Gray-Little & Hafdahl, 2000). " 
Source

Even a web site for and by Blacks said this:

"Any criticism towards anything related to Black People will be quickly pegged as racism… even if it is another Black Person who is doing the criticizing. Black People who (justifiably) criticize other Black People are promptly branded as being a sellout or an Uncle Tom."

"Far too many Black People believe that they don’t need to get their high school diploma when they can just settle for a GED, don’t need to read books, don’t need to study and learn facts or solve math problems, don’t need to go to and graduate from college, don’t need to eat healthy and exercise, don’t need to save money, should embrace gang life, should blame Caucasian People for all their problems, don’t need to work a decent job and stay out of prison, shouldn’t be interested in politics, don’t need to be proper parents to their children, should objectify women, and so on."
Source

 Speaking of politics, it is mostly Democrats and white liberals now who excuse and even defend the actions of the Blacks. They will fight to give the minorities unfair advantages and charity that whites don't even get!

Considering that there are few minorities that are not Democratic, it is a matter of conflicted interests. The party has become all about rich whites in power, garnering minority support by promising more charity. 

The (half black) president Obama was put in office to pacify the minority community. (80% of whom voted for him. While generally uncaring, in this last presidential election More Blacks then whites voted! Apparently only caring about the color of their president's skin.)

It is inevitable that as long as minorities still have a vote in the matter on how we support them, the Democrats and this country's economy will always be heavily influenced by and drug down by them, because they are a parasite.  

The Democratic party has ironically come full circle on their stand for minorities. . . since before the blacks were given the vote. In 1857 they strongly supported the decision of the supreme court that Blacks were not to be thought of as full citizens, while Republicans fought it. 

Source

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights act of 1965 were the true turning points in the USA's history of seeing blacks as full citizens with equal rights to vote. . .this coming on the heels of Martin Luther Kings civil rights movement and a huge march of Blacks to revolt against their segregation from whites.

Even when blacks could vote, Democrat state legislatures reduced voting by blacks and poor whites by passing more restrictive electoral and voter registration rules and passing Jim Crow laws to establish racial segregation. These conservative, white, democratic governments were deemed Redeemer governments.

Republicans nationally pressed for the granting of political rights to the newly freed slaves turned unwanted pets. As segregation from the whites "led to conditions for African Americans that tended to be inferior to those provided for white Americans, systematizing a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages."
Source Source

When Blacks are left to themselves and taken away from the less passionate, more logical thinking white calming influences, of course they will have "disadvantages", but it is not the fault of the whites!! The problem is them and their demanding things they have never earned, and will never get without stealing or just plain charity.

Blacks belong in the jungles of Africa, were they started, and where their pure family is. . .they will only be judged and ill-suited for our culture as long as they try to fit into white civilization! We took them from their habitat, and should return them. . .


Is seems to me that a big part of the problem in American politics (and just the world in general), is that people have forgotten or never knew the origin of blacks who stemmed from the primitive homo erectus and the whites who stemmed from the Neanderthal. (Something I have proven with genetics, and ties into the origin of all religion too.)

The Blacks themselves are too proud to admit to jealousy of the whites for their European history of high IQ, wealth, leadership worldwide and technology. They will always have issues with fitting into a civilized white culture that doesn't really like them. . .until they interbreed. As an old white euphemism goes: "If you're white, you're alright. If you're brown, stick around. If you're Black, stay back." 


This post hasn't discussed the mixes, as the Hispanics, who fall inbetween the blacks and whites in IQ, and thus crime, welfare dependence, etc. . .but it is not consistent with mixes, as you never know who will be dominant white inside, or dominant black, regardless of their coloring. With dark being dominant in all the children of the mixed marriages, most know that it's not a matter of color anyways. 

Racism based on color is a moot point anyways, it is called specieism! Something I spoke of in my post here: Racism through the eyes of science.

Nor can we be missionaries to the Blacks, or any 3rd world nation people. We can't bring them up to our level of intelligence, or wealth, or if we're religious seek to save them. 


Even if they get baptized, religion doesn't work to change the life, it is simply a bloodline. The test of the bloodline being in you is how godly you are, and that depends on your connection to the original god through blood! The children of God as seen clearly through DNA and the Bible always have been white, as I blogged on in my post God's chosen people a race or religion?

Africa is the most Christian nation in the world, and Blacks and minorities in America and worldwide are almost universally more religious then the white populations of the world. Basically the darker and less IQ you have, the more likely you are to be religious, or want to be associated with those who started religion, the original jews. Religion won't change those with a different species in them, to act like the "children of God", anymore then a lion can, or should be changed to be acting like a lamb.

Nor should it be a case of competition, or inequality. . . anymore then a dog should compete with a cat. (Everyone knows that generally one is stronger and one is smarter. . .just like Blacks and whites.) 

The correlations with low IQ and all things bad or at least unequal are inevitable in fact, and always connected to the most pure blacks. Check out this chart. . .

Source
Of course, IQ doesn't mean everything, as you can get a menial job (and even sometimes keep it) when simple or mentally handicapped like with Down syndrome. . . as long as you can admit to it or it's obvious to others. (Because good people will feel sorry for you, and give allowance for your behavior.)

 So likely if you humbly behave yourself as a low IQ and peaceful person, you may even have supportive high IQ friends and family who can help you fit in better. . .in other words if you are not a low IQ and arrogant black person, from a low IQ black family. Otherwise, sadly, civilization simply just isn't cut out for you. 

Should dependents be given the choice. . .?

When you are dependent on others for your life, that is called being a parasite. Technically then, a baby is even a parasite!

Obviously a parasite like a worm in our gut is treated differently then the dependent like a baby in the womb, but I am going somewhere with this, so hear me out. My last post was talking of those who were abnormal and unhealthy physically, and concluded with "If you can accept you are defective, unhealthy or otherwise not acceptable to society in general, and are still happy to be alive, you are in the best place. Everyone (as long as they are not dependent on others for their own life) has the right to love, live and reproduce." . .but is it best to reproduce?

Should the individual be expected to be mentally or physically mature or a certain age before they are deemed independent and given the choice to reproduce?

In the case of a dependent baby in the womb, society has deemed that it is the mothers choice of not just whether that child will reproduce, but whether they will even live! As a person has the right to chose whether they will support or kill a parasite, an unwanted baby is likewise a parasite that has no ability to live on their own, and thus has no right to a say in the matter of whether or not they live or die.

On another level, but to do with the same question: we say that a 13 year old teenage girl should not have the choice of whether or not she can love, or at least live with the 21 year old guy who just impregnated her, and that seems logical, as she is not a legal and responsible adult yet. Should a young teen under legal age be able to carry, deliver and keep a baby, or should her and her parent's first concern be with growing the teen?



If a proper full grown size is the only issue, then should a midget be able to have babies? Is it even healthy for them to have such a large bump in them?


I think it should be the choice of the midget, as they can and do have some normal children, and they should be able to make wise choices. . .if they have come to the end of their grieving stages, as I spoke of in my post: Abnormalities of the body and the connected grief stages.

Wouldn't you think whether or not a person has the right to bring a baby into the world has more to do with the ability to support yourself, and thus they are ready to support another?  While logically it should be the parent's choice about whether or not to abort the baby of a dependent 13 year old, on the other hand midgets, being thinking  and independent adults, are rarely told they couldn't have kids. (Even if it's not best for the mother, child or humanity if they do have kids that carry on the defective genes, bringing with it many health issues.)

What about the Down syndrome girl?


As sweet as people with Down's are, from what I have been told, most if not all of those with Down syndrome will never live completely independent of their caregiver, yet they are somewhat sexual. Though greatly childlike and half of them being infertile anyways, at least half of all women with Down syndrome do ovulate and are fertile. Numerous experts in physical and sexual abuse acknowledge that the mentally disabled individual is particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and abuse. Studies indicate that half of the mildly disabled Adults with Down's were sexually active. . . and one out of 3 were raped or a victim of incest. They do not have healthy or normal marriages, and are always highly supervised by family members, even when they marry a "normal" person. (As abuse is so common.)
Source

If and when the Down syndrome woman gets pregnant by marriage, incest or rape, between 35 and 50 percent of their children will have trisomy 21 or other developmental disabilities. Offspring without Down syndrome have an overall much greater than average number of congenital anomalies. (This chance is even higher where both parents have Down's syndrome. . .which is very rare and "troubling" to experts.) There is also a high chance that pregnancy would end in miscarriage. Women with Down's syndrome are also more likely than other women to have a premature baby, or to need a caesarian section, as they can't communicate their needs or take care of themselves in pregnancy. As they are dependent themselves, the studies show that they make clueless and neglectful parents, even if not intentionally abusive.


Considering all this, should the Down syndrome girl be told by her parents or a caregiver that she needs to get an abortion if she gets pregnant, and/or be told to get sterilized or have an IUD implanted to prevent pregnancy in the first place? Would it be more cruel to control her fertility (or strongly suggest she do it herself), or not to control it!?  

Should those who are 

1. dependent on a mother's body (fetus), 
2. dependent on their family (handicapped or teenagers with no money) 
3. or those otherwise completely dependent on others for their life and care. . .

 Even be allowed to procreate without permission from their caregiver? Do they even get a vote, as they are no different then a dependent child or a baby in the womb?

To put it another way, think of a pet who is dependent on you. Do they have the right to bring home a bunch of their stray friends for you to feed and care for? Out of mercy and kindness we may let them take advantage of us, because it feels good to be needed. . . but they do not have the right.

 I have at one time adopted 5 such abandoned large dogs when we were in the country. What happened next to them though? As we couldn't contain them, some started getting shot at. Traveling around together, the pack attracted the neighbor dogs to join, and then the dominant one got a neighbor's dog pregnant. The purebred dog then had such ugly mutts that no one wanted them. In the end few lived, and their lives were bad after we left the neighborhood.



So then one could ask, "Is it more cruel to spay or neuter the ugly mutt or a diseased or starving stray, or not to?" I think most people would admit that the average mutt should not be allowed to take over and populate the world, and only the purest, healthiest or wanted ones should not be fixed. (Sadly I did not have the money to do this for the dogs we adopted, and we should have, or taken then to a pound.) That is more humane in the end!

Some would go so far as to say that many stray dogs (like these ones to the left), would be better off being "put out of their misery". Do we shoot the horse that is in pain and suffering and call it humane? Why do we refuse to do the same for many dogs now, much less humans? We call euthanasia a bad thing, but when it involves animals we generally call it mercy. . .

Whatever the case, if an animal or human offspring doesn't have a good chance of being healthy, wanted or cared for, and is dependent on someone else, it seems to me that at very least, "fixing" the mother would be the merciful thing both for the mother, and for the miserable and dependent future generations.

One could make the argument that like with the dependent pets, it is only for the benefit of those defective and undesirables and their future generations that we would want to control their fertility, but while that sounds very altruistic and kind, there is no denying the more sinister side of the coin. . .

The side of the stressed out caregivers, the poor families, overtaxed middle class and bankrupt governments of the world. . .who probably all probably know that constant catering to and supporting the weak will eventually bring down the health or welfare of the caregivers or the whole group/country! Sadly, in the end, our pity and compassion for the weak, and dependents of the world is unsustainable if there are too many dependents. We are told by the Democrats to feel bad if we can't give charity to the vets, fatherless families, immigrants and poor. They push for extended medicare, housing programs, foodstamps, heating and cooling help, welfare, WIC, unemployment or retirement benefits, and even foreign aide, etc. as if our country is made out of money!

Because of our love of "diversity", our compassion and our generosity towards the underdogs of the world, the dependent, defective and vulnerable population has turned into a dependent or "parasite" problem for those having to support them. . .in the end giving the better treatment to the takers then the givers.


The tax payers are basically being told "Work hard to support those who can't or won't help themselves. . .whether or not you want to, or can afford it."



While it is obvious that the media and the mainstream (even the Republicans!) have feared the topic of controlling fertility as eugenics, as I stated earlier, it really is more humane. Similarly like pets, I think that all woman should be put on birth control unless they prove healthy, independent and mentally ready to parent. . .as they would have to show when going to adopt. This would both protect the individuals and the future generations from starvation, pain, constant abortions or being unwanted. . . simply by mandating birth control for all. 

Stopping the cycle of dependents in the world, just as we have always done with young teens by abortions and fixing pets, would be wise for our survival and our welfare as a nation and world. Those who are dependent themselves, will breed dependent and/or defective children who in the end will likely have no one to support them, so they will be on the street like a stray dog. That is cruel to all involved.

Are there others though who like the fetuses, teen and the handicapped (mentally or physically), are incapable parents, and are completely dependent on family (or often the government) for their very lives? 

Who are basically, much as I hate to say it. . . the "parasites" of our world? This question and more I will explore in my next post: The parasites of dying civilizations.

Abnormalities of the body and the connected grief stages.

I was watching a series on the Discovery channel called "Extreme bodies" and I noted something: whether the people were midgets,

conjoined twins, pituitary giants or extremely obese, the people generally did not admit to their differences being defects of healthy normal bodies! Instead these defected folks claimed and fought to prove that they were just like anyone else. They all had significant health issues, and spent a lot of money trying to be normal and pain free, but they still did not humble themselves into admitting to a problem. They wanted people to basically close their eyes or look away. . . saying they were normal and fine. Not different and unhealthy with a normal inside, but normal all around.

I have seen the same mindset from the people doing special Olympics, those missing limbs, those who are paraplegics or those who are overweight. To say they are different because of a deformity or ill-health is not prejudiced, it is simply observant and honest. That doesn't make them bad, or inferior inwardly as a human, but it does make them abnormal and in most cases, unhealthy outwardly.

"It's not easy being green", er, different I'm sure! As a consequence of feeling different, you would inevitably in some way spend your life grieving over a generally unavoidable body image. I came to an epiphany when I realized how the grieving process was the same whether after a death, or after loosing (or never having) body functions that "normal" healthy people take for granted. Not feeling normal or adequate in comparison to others in society seems to cause a grief response. What are the responses of grief?

The first response is denial, and it is not healthy to stay here. . .yet sadly, society is actually encouraging this in these individuals. Whether it be denying the problem with your body or that of your baby in the womb, a denial generally avoids treatment or looking for solutions. There is a big difference between denying the problem, and accepting it, although the outward expression may look the same at times. (A happy person.) In our compassion, society has erred on the side of non-judgment of these unhealthy people.

 We have tried hard to make these people feel as normal as possible. As a sign of how well we have done in this, the weaker elements of American society have been enabled and empowered to not only be taken care of, but be somewhat independent. . .


 Being kind and compassionate is great, but it has gone past helpful. Thanks to a close mouthed and dishonest society in America, where all differences are just diversity, these defected people are in such denial, that they are choosing to bring children into the world; these children will then likely have the genes or habits to have the same problems. This is irresponsible, cruel and selfish of those parents, IMO! A person who is not in denial of their problem would choose to get sterilized, as a friend of mine did when she had one genetically mutated child die at birth, and another one who lived in misery until he died at 8. Sadly others are not even this kind! When the body is not healthy enough to be able to reproduce, they will circumvent their infertility issues artificially, instead of adopting. . . in order to reproduce themselves. This is a sign that they really do not realize they have a problem and should not be spreading it, but in fact, have an unrealistically good self esteem/ego. (Or could be called pride even.)This is a problem!

The next response of grieving is anger, and this is where many handicapped or different people stay. Those not born with their defect, or not supported by others with it are the most likely to make it to or past this stage.  It seems to me that those knowing nothing else, and being surrounded by similarly defected or just supportive people, are the happiest. Ignorance is bliss, and they are ignorantly in denial about their problems.

Classically, if they aren't denying their problem though, they are being defensive about their problem, or always wanting to bring it up.  When others take the bait and get honest about the problem, or pity them for it, they blow up. I see this anger as to be pitied inwardly maybe, but not put up with, as it will only make the behavior escalate. I think of Helen Keller who as a child was blind, deaf and dumb, but worst, she was spoiled. Until someone took a firm hand with her, and treated her as she treated others, she lived in her anger and hurt everyone, including herself. We do no favor to others when we outwardly pity or spoil those who are defected or unhealthy. They need to humbly be aware of their limitations, and work within their unique capacities, just as a toddler needs to be allowed to walk, learn and fall to develop realistic limits and goals.

Next is bargaining. A conjoined twin like in the show might say to themselves, "I could get married, then I would be looked on as normal. . .and if he didn't treat me right, then I would divorce him." That wishful thinking might help her self esteem, but sadly it is unrealistic as the twins are homely, overweight and almost 60 years old! (Not to mention that no man yet has wanted to marry one twin who is attached to another half a person permanently on a stool. Nor could they have or take care of kids, or likely have parents that are alive.) So they will likely always live alone.

Others that are obese said, "If I just got this surgery, or went on this fad diet, I might be able to get my life back." Or "if only I could make the money for this procedure or machine or supplement, etc. or gone back in time before I broke something, got depressed, etc." Or "if I could only be accepted, or. . ." Many people with lifelong issues will pray everyday to God, and make all sorts of bargains what they will do if he makes them better. In the end, this is not a healthy stage to be in, as it is ungrateful, un-peaceful, desperate, and in most cases just wishful thinking.

Depression is very common, and next. Those who realize how they will be living a shortened life, a painful life, a life full of stares and rejection will generally and soberly come to grips with this sometime before they die, and consequently be rather depressed. This doesn't have to be long, but it is very healthy, and wise. Sometime children who have gone through a lot are very mature, as they have been through this depressing reality, that is generally also motivating. Those who see the problem, and get good and depressed by it, are more likely to make the most of the life they have. (Or in the case of obesity, change habits they have that may give them a new lease on life.)

Lastly, Acceptance. If you can accept you are defective, unhealthy or otherwise not acceptable to society in general, and are still happy to be alive, you are in the best place. Everyone (as long as they are not dependent on others for their own life) has the right to love, live and reproduce. For the love of their possible offspring and humanity though, those who will likely cause mental or physical suffering for their children, might be wise to choose against the latter. As it would be more humane.

What about the dependents? These are deep questions we all need to face. I will talk of this more in my next post called:  Should dependents be given the choice. . .?