Dare speaketh the truth, and bombs away. Professor Hans Hoppe has been under seige, for some time now, for a politically incorrect remark he made in his classroom, in regards to discussing time preferences.

The subject of the lecture was economic planning for the future. Hoppe said he gave several examples to the class of about 30 upper-level undergraduate students on groups who tend to plan for the future and groups who do not.

Very young and very old people, for example, tend not to plan for the future, he said. Couples with children tend to plan more than couples without.

As in all social sciences, he said, he was speaking in generalities.

Another example he gave the class was that homosexuals tend to plan less for the future than heterosexuals.

Reasons for the phenomenon include the fact that homosexuals tend not to have children, he said. They also tend to live riskier lifestyles than heterosexuals, Hoppe said.

He said there is a belief among some economists that one of the 20th century's most influential economists, John Maynard Keynes, was influenced in his beliefs by his homosexuality. Keynes espoused a "spend it now" philosophy to keep an economy strong, much as President Bush did after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Hoppe said the portion of the lecture on homosexuals lasted perhaps 90 seconds, while the entire lecture took up his 75-minute class.

Now, Hoppe's belief can surely be debated, but common sense and observation dictates that homosexuals likely do live a more promiscuous lifestyle, and do have higher time preferences for the reason that Hoppe spoke of. The promiscuity of homosexuals comes about due to the lack of "the civilizing feature" found in a man-woman relationship wherein the female "civilizes" the male sexually, refocuses him on the relationship and family, and changes his time preferences through her love and through her nature of sexuality, which is based on long-term stability and *low* time preferences. (See George Gilder's thesis on this in the excellent Men and Marriage.)

Now, Gilder's book has generally been perceived as being rather risque and politically incorrect. His thesis is the primacy of women; the differences in time preferences between men and women; and the necessity of patriarchy for a civilized order. Some interesting points from Gilder's book:

Modern society relies on predictable, regular, long-term human activities, corresponding to the sexual faculties of women. The male pattern is the enemy of social stability. This is the ultimate source of female sexual control and the crucial reason for it. Women domesticate and civilize male nature. They can jeopardize male discipline and identity, and civilization as well, merely by giving up the role.

The man's participation in the chain of nature, his access to social immortality, the very meaning of his potency, of his life energy, are all inexorably contingent on a woman's durable love and on her sexual discipline. Only she can free a man of his exile from the chain of nature; only she can give significance to his most powerful drives.

Male dominance in the marketplace, on the other hand, is a social artifice maintained not for the dubious benefits it confers on men, but for the indispensable benefits it offers the society: inducing men to support rather than disrupt it.

Conventional male power, in fact, might be considered more than ideological myth. It is designed to induce the majority of men to accept a bondage to the machine and the marketplace, to a large extent in the service of women and in the interest of civilization.

Gilder notes that women "become a way to lend continuity and meaning to his limited erotic compulsions." The sentence I bolded above is what is wrong with feminism as we know it. The male role - that of the great equalizer, provider, and protectorate - is being cast aside in favor of feminist oppression and berating of normal male behavorial patterns. For instance, the whole Ritalin and the ADD curse are modern examples of using modern "science" to subdue and persecute young boys, instead of properly channeling their energies and intelligence toward their most productive male use. Modern feminism does not exercise that primacy Gilder spoke of; it tries to compete with and subdue maleness, and the loss of the "domesticating and civilizing" role leads to the confusion and ruination of biological/sexual roles.