RSS
Roe v. Wade may have been the dumbest Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. But it wasn’t the first assault on American liberties or the most devastating Court decision. And its legacy is far from over.
While so many Proud American Patriots and Single-Issue Simpletons were distracted, all hell broke loose over the last century. In many ways, the cultural decline that led to this 1973 Court decision is more important than the foolish ruling itself.
This January 22 will mark the 52nd anniversary of seven elderly men on the U.S. Supreme Court injecting their personal opinions into one of the most divisive and nonsensical rulings in America’s history. Although the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, its negative effects will stay with us for quite a while, with single-issue extremists digging in on both sides for more political theatrics and continued avoidance of other important affairs.
At minimum, abortion will remain a contentious topic at the state level for the foreseeable future. And it will most likely be trotted out by Democrats at the national level as some libertine shibboleth to distract people from their other totalitarian policies (including this one). If Republicans stay true to form, they will continue defensively stammering about the “sanctity of life,” as they promote crushing economic blockades and mass-murder around the globe.
But predictable demagoguery from both sides over “reproductive rights” or “family values” is only part of the story. The legal absurdity of Roe, which reveals ongoing Democrat contempt for the Constitution, is also important.
So is the complete joke of the Religious Right and its ongoing melodrama over their ONE Big Issue. As is the massive federal interference on literally everything from Agriculture to Energy and Retirement Planning to Wage Controls—and over a dozen other major areas affecting Americans daily—that many “pro-choice” or “pro-life” adherents would rather not discuss.
Also significant is the sick obsession with forcing every community across the country to accept what many Americans (including Planned Parenthood not long ago) regard as “baby killing” right in their own neighborhoods. As to the Queer Paring of anti-abortion Christian Zionists and pro-abortion Reformed Jews, this side topic will be left to the Comments section where some degree of dialogue could provide better analysis and be less distracting from the main story.
Avoiding the Trap of Single-Issue Fanaticism (including Nationalism)
Since abortion tends to be a topic that leads to tiresome sloganeering and dogmatic orthodoxies, I’ll be adding some “bonus material” to this essay to keep things interesting. This includes a long overdue rebuke of the tax-favored clown posse of the Church of the One Commandment that elevates this ONE topic to obscene levels. (Their other pet cause of Zionist supremacy is equally absurd. I’ll leave that for another day.)
And let’s be honest. I’d bet that over 90% of the readers of this site would rather talk about Nationalism than Abortion—or perhaps any other topic. So for today, I’ll talk about both. In so doing, I’m hoping to share the spotlight with some of the proud American folks like these who don’t quite seem to “get it” on a lot of important things…
In a more general sense, many right-wing ideologues get cause and effect backwards on the topics of abortion, related woke/sexual/LGBTQ issues—and Nationalism too. That is, the insane 1973 Court ruling that Nationalized “abortion rights” wasn’t launched as some surprise attack on an otherwise healthy American culture. That assault on community standards (and human decency) came as the logical conclusion of 70-80 years of steady drift into the abyss.
By the time that totalitarian New Deal berserkers took control in the pivotal 1930s, most Americans had already bought into a heap of Nationalist fantasies that left them vulnerable to the charlatans who feasted on the easy prey of a hollowed out society stumbling in the dark. I’ll cite a few dozen examples of Nationalist expansion (almost always imposed without voter input) with a concise timeline later in this essay.
The fact that scores of right-wing academics and “sponsor me” shills think that the answer to all of our problems is more empty National sloganeering is counterproductive to say the least. And that approach has failed badly since at least the 1890s… not that reality has ever clouded the judgment of zealous political demagogues trolling for patrons.
Moving on to the main feature…
Prelude to ‘Roe’: Inventing new federal powers for (certain) “privacy” rights
Even with an activist Court of the 1960s already steeped in expanding federal roles into areas (labor law, education, farming, housing, racial revenge, etc.) where no legitimate authority was granted in the Constitution, it was an enormous stretch to claim federal power to usurp over a century of State legislation on abortion. So the Court’s progressives invented “abortion rights” in two steps, starting with selective “privacy rights” for birth control. Or more aptly, federal rights to strike down an 1879 Connecticut law they disliked.
(Those privacy rights would be entirely forgotten when three liberal Justices in 2022 claimed OSHA authority to impose experimental gene therapy on anyone working at a company with 100 or more employees. Other explicit Constitutional privacy rights to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers” from arbitrary “searches and seizures” (i.e., the Fourth Amendment) were cast away long ago by federal agencies demanding self-incrimination under the guise of “racial justice” or “environmental compliance” or almost anything else now.)
But in 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court needed to be a bit more creative to allow Washington to creep into American bedrooms. Here is where a feminist named Estelle Griswold, head of Planned Parenthood enterprises in Connecticut, enters the picture. Ms. Griswold and an activist professor named Lee Buxton of Yale (who volunteered for Planned Parenthood) were looking for a way to spread their controversial ideas on birth control—without the effort of changing state law—and figured the Court would be receptive to their politics and methods.
The “facts” of the Griswold vs. Connecticut case as summarized by the liberal law organization Justia state that Buxton and Griswold “opened a birth control clinic in New Haven” and
They were arrested and convicted of violating the law, and their convictions were affirmed by higher state courts. However, this was part of their plan to use the clinic to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment, on which grounds they appealed to the Supreme Court.
As progressives had done before on community housing agreements and racial revenge laws, the problematic 14th Amendment was selected as their weapon of choice. That post-Civil War amendment from 1868 was again used in 1965 to invert the Constitution from a shield to protect against federal abuses into a weapon to advance them.
The bewildering language that the Court majority rested upon in Griswold vs. Connecticut to invent a federal “privacy right” to strike down a State law on birth control has often been ridiculed since then for its grasping and arbitrary nature. Wikipedia provides the excerpt from the famous 1965 SCOTUS opinion:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy.
Instead of limiting federal power as had been originally intended, the Court hid behind the excuse of “privacy” to now expand federal powers to trample State authority, as it had done many times before during the prior three decades. To invent federal powers on advancing “abortion rights” in 1973, the Court would continue its foray into the vapors of the shadows of a Constitution they openly despised.
Keeping an Eye on the Big Picture / Low-Budget Commercial Break
As noted above, with polarizing topics like abortion (and other “hot button” issues) I find it important to keep an eye on the larger view of the political landscape. If you had asked me 30 years ago what I thought was the primary argument for or against legalized abortion, I probably would have focused on basic human science. If age and experience has taught me anything, I think otherwise today.
Among other things, the legal and cultural implications surrounding legalized abortion seem more important now. And more interesting.
One such topic of interest is media history and the evolution of mass communications.
As you may have noticed, legacy media is absolutely stuffed to the gills on corporate media bribes they blithely refer to as “advertisements.” I’ll skip the lengthy analysis today on why and how state laws should be strengthened to crack down on this dangerous and “unregulated” co-mingling of Corporate Media privileges and Corporate Hush Money and just note that institutional bribery is a problem. Big Pharma’s grip on our privileged FCC broadcasters is just one such example.
Since The Unz Review is gloriously “ad-free” (except for authors plugging their books) I’ll take the liberty to insert a few Public Service Announcements on topics of general interest in the realm of abortion politics. In a larger sense, the enormity of America tolerating systematic parental “killing” of children for over 50 years is just too mind-boggling to ignore the extensive cultural breakdowns that brought us to this point.
If this were a movie, I’d call it vital backstory. I’ll be getting back to the main feature soon.
Sex on the Brain: Meet the ‘Church of the One Commandment’
As anyone vaguely familiar with abortion politics since the 1970s should know, the Pro-Life side is heavily represented by Christian conservatives. Anyone acquainted with conservative Christian media and political activism should also know that abortion, LGBTQ issues, sexual purity and “family values” dominates their public discussions—often at the expense of many other important (and Biblical) topics.
Here we have one of many instances of the problem of *subsidized* religious officials pandering to an audience of believers. For example, telling an audience of married Christian adults that “sex before marriage is wrong” (or the “most grievous sin” according to some) will get lots of heads nodding in agreement and probably a few “Amens.” That’s because it’s just telling people what they want to hear, not challenging anyone at all, thus no need for personal reflection or—shocking to think—changing our ways to conform to God’s will. (Black pastors howling about white “racism” as the root of all evil is another great example of disgraceful pandering, which in this case hurts blacks more than anyone.)
According to the Church of the One Commandment, most forms of organized stealing, killing, coveting and (blatant) idol worship are perfectly fine… as long as someone doesn’t have sex with the wrong person. Along the way, the common “evil” of political favoritism and “detestable” double standards somehow got lost in translation.
(Organized religion in West is badly overdue for another “reformation” or whatever we choose to call it. Starting with the “clergy” vs. “laity” scam of long ago, then twisting temporary famine relief into a permanent corporate hierarchy, then adding convoluted “ordination” rules to consolidate power, then going insane in the 4th century AD… soon led to the protracted misery known as the Dark Ages. After centuries of squalor, the Corporate Church took a fancy to exploiting peasants to erect thousands of pretentious castle “churches,” went hog wild with numerous Crusades, and terrorized most of Europe with the extreme intolerance of multiple Inquisitions.
Thanks to a small army of brave Christian reformers, Europe finally gained a significant respite that liberated millions (c. 1400s to 1800s) and lifted society to new heights. Then the 20th century of American exceptionalism and European fatigue saw much of their cultures gradually falling back to pagan idol worship and increasingly crass corporate racketeering.)
So, yeah, I’d say the institutional Church of the West has much to answer for. As do “secular” academic shysters who copy nearly all of that contrived pomposity—with no moral foundation to stand on. But no sane person expects self-worshipping ideologues to actually solve problems. We can and should expect more from any sincere “religious” folk.
As things now stand in America, approved religious corporations start with a lucrative 100% property tax exemption to build elaborate temples where polished stage preachers dazzle their passive audiences with empty rhetoric, book-thumping, podium humping and mountains of superficial fluff. As noted previously, the arrogance proceeds as
Other favoritism awarded to approved “non-profit” sects (religious and secular) include blanket exemptions to utilize child labor and dodge “minimum wage” laws for millions of volunteering adults—while often self-righteously condemning those practices if any gainful business should attempt them. Among other things, favoritism leads to hyper-legalism (running amok in our society) and revolting levels of hypocrisy—more “bad fruit” of subsidized religion.
A central theme of modern institutional religion (and also secular education) can be reduced to the profound but unspoked assumption that: “I’m special, I deserve special treatment.” The presumption of entitlement behind this massive favoritism leads to the arrogance, cowardice, and eventual blindness that now accompanies much of the West’s cultural demise.
No one wants to listen to a bunch religious charlatans lecturing us on “abortion” or “family values” any more than people want to suffer through university cranks howling about “racism, sexism and homophobia.” Thanks to centuries of willful acceptance of rampant favoritism and harmful double standards, organized religion now has zero credibility with most Americans and Europeans on any topic of social importance. (University crackpots only have credibility because their friends in news and entertainment grant them free platforms for their preaching—as long as it’s toxic and anti-social.)
Since the alternatives of frothing pagan nationalism or self-worshipping sophistry have proven to be immeasurably worse over the last century, I don’t think “religion” itself is the problem. A few examples on the “secular” side of the aisle…
Putting religious differences aside, one would hope that any reasonable Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist should be able to find common ground that no religion should be subsidized. But as of today, it appears that this position is extremely unpopular—at least among public intellectuals of any significance.
Which brings us to the almost unbelievable Roe v. Wade ruling from 1973…
The National Travesty of Roe v. Wade
Perhaps it’s fitting that arguably the dumbest (not worst) Supreme Court ruling in American history began with a lie. It’s largely forgotten that this case started with false “rape” claims of plaintiff Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey—cruelly exploited by feminist lawyers who didn’t care about their courtroom prop. Ms. McCorvey’s subsequent public admission of lying has rarely gotten in the way of the mainstream narrative that promotes legalized abortion as the height of human achievement.
The Roe verdict proceeded to invent national “abortion rights” based on the flimsy 1965 SCOTUS language from Griswold vs. Connecticut about mystical “rights” floating around in the “emanations” of the “penumbras” (that is, the vapors of the shadows) of a Constitution they had shredded long ago.
Once again, this high federal court trampled on the laws of all 50 States, often invalidating “democratic” public expressions on the books for over a century. The seven pro-abortion Justices further disgraced themselves by their complete lack of understanding of medical science, not to mention basic Constitution law, with attempts to define “viability”—as in Who is a Person (with full legal rights) vs. Who is Not a Person (with no legal rights). As such, the 1973 Court was trodding in a grizzly arena where even the animated Courts of the 1940s and 50s dared not step.
These facts alone should be enough to qualify Roe v. Wade as one of the stupidest Supreme Court decisions of all time. But it gets worse. As it turns out, there were significant legal and scientific reasons to either respect State laws as perfectly valid or summarily reject the plaintiff’s claims of ignorance over human development—ignorance (they argued) must point in favor of legalized abortion.
The ‘Settled Science’ of the 1960s
The seven pro-abortion judges (five Republicans and two Democrats) behind the majority ruling in Roe v. Wade covered their lack of medical knowledge with over 30 pages of rambling sophistry on everything from the Hippocratic Oath to bizarre assertions that “abortion was practiced (without scruple) in Greek times as well as in the Roman Era” and that “Ancient religion did not bar abortion.” Beyond that, the pro-abortion judges talked a lot about “liberty” and “privacy,” as they suddenly recognized it, and leaned heavily on the dubious 14th Amendment of 1868 vintage.
In his dissent, Nixon-appointee William Rehnquist (joined by JFK-nominee Byron White) pointed out that:
By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857…
But the seven abortion activist lawyers had no regard for long-established judicial precedent. And the “science” behind the majority ruling was even more bleak. Author of the majority opinion, Harry Blackmun, reflected on the rudimentary medical knowledge of the Greco-Roman period, claiming:
Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability.
… There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics.
As for current medical science, the seven pro-abortion lawyers were dumbfounded. If any of them had the intellectual curiosity to open the Encyclopedia Britannica of that era, they might have learned under the section on “Embryology, Human” that:
The heart begins to beat toward the end of the third week [after conception]. The voluntary muscles are able to contract in response to external stimuli (touch or pin prick) after the eighth week and spontaneous movements may begin as early as 9.5 weeks. (1963 Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 8, page 329)
So if “progress” means anything, modern medical science could accurately update the ancient concept of “abortion” (i.e., an unplanned interruption, as in “abort mission”) to something more like infanticide—that is, intentional killing of a child with a detectable heart beat and other human features. Conversely, using the “viability” argument (Blackmun’s favorite crutch) a person could easily make a case that a one or two year old child is not “viable” to live on his own without continual support from an adult. Therefore, any young child could be killed for any reason, under the slippery Roe doctrine.
And the chief agitators for legal infanticide, abortion industry heavyweights Planned Parenthood, were fully aware of this science. One of the more damning “smoking guns” of 20th century U.S. politics comes from Planned Parenthood’s 1960s brochure “Plan Your Children for health and happiness” that promoted artificial birth control at a time when it was still controversial. That pamphlet contained a Question & Answer section as follows:
Is it an operation?
It is not an operation of any kind.
Is it an abortion?
Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.
For greater mass appeal, we have Life magazine in 1965, then one of the most widely read publications in the country. In April 1965, the magazine’s famous cover feature “Life Before Birth” showed state-of-the-art photos of human development and explicitly stated that life starts at conception. After a short introduction, the main article begins:
The birth of a human life really occurs at the moment the mother’s egg cell is fertilized by one of the father’s sperm cells.
Their 1965 feature (reproduced in full here and with pro-life commentary here) went on to explain in simple scientific language—accompanied by over a dozen magnified in utero photographs—how a pre-born child develops from day one to week 28. This was science without any political overtones. None whatsoever.
Back when I became aware of this once famous (now forgotten) feature in Life magazine about three decades ago, I made a point to spend a few hours looking through other bound periodicals from that period (mainly Time and Newsweek) to see if anyone was expressing disagreement with the magazine’s quoted “birth of a human life” assessment above, or their article in general. I couldn’t find anything of the sort.
Apparently, there was no scientific or political push-back at the time against Life’s groundbreaking discovery. For those and other reasons, the understanding that abortion kills innocent life would easily qualify as settled science by the mid-1960s. Corruptible journalists, academic hacks and deceitful politicians have, since then, only confused matters by inserting misleading jargon (“pro-choice,” “abortion rights,” “safe and legal,” “reproductive rights,” etc.) reflecting their personal preferences of what they wish was science.
(The “choice” canard is particularly rich coming from pro-abortion liberals who are usually anti-choice on education, anti-choice on vax mandates, anti-choice on energy use, anti-choice on private property, anti-choice on hiring decisions, wildly anti-choice on community standards and pro-Big Government on everything… except for human life. Taken in its entirety, the doctrinaire anti-choice/pro-death attitude of many Democrats and some RINOs reveals the core philosophy of self-worshipping sociopaths, not “atheists” who believe in nothing.)
The decade after the Roe decision saw further scientific advances favoring the anti-abortion position. Video evidence from former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, who made the 1984 film Silent Scream showing an abortion at 12 weeks and then the 1987 film Eclipse of Reason featuring the full-on dismemberment of a 2nd or 3rd trimester child, cut through the fog of pro-abortion claims that the target of that procedure was just a “lump of cells.” Both documentaries gave the Right to Life movement a major boost of energy in the 1980s (the latter film piqued my interest back then) but were briefly attacked and then ignored in the mainstream press.
On the other side, “abortion rights” activists focused heavily on sloganeering about “choice” to convince people that pregnancy was a disease that needed to be cured by a “healthcare provider.” Other pro-abortion attempts to link science and ancient religious beliefs are equally unimpressive. This Reformed Jewish rabbi and pro-abortion activist claims:
In the Talmud, a collection of Jewish legal materials, it states: “Until 40 days from conception, the fetus is merely water.”
Notwithstanding that trite bit of religious doctrine and related demagoguery, the abovementioned scientific and video evidence and sound legal arguments convinced millions of people to take a public stance against the willful killing of unborn children (in my opinion, preferably enforced on a State-by-State level). But the pro-abortion movement had money—from the Rockefellers and Warren “abortion church” Buffett, to more recently Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg, George Soros, etc. and the industry’s own profitable assembly lines—and overwhelming media support on their side.
Of Course, Science isn’t Everything
Here’s the thing about “science” in the real world. Anyone with a pulse eventually comes to the reality of what “just happened” after a pregnancy is voluntarily ended. It may take days or it may take years. But anything that violent and unnatural leaves a mark. That’s just basic human nature.
And the medical quacks who con people into this desperate “choice” will be long gone, counting their easy cash and soothing the next pregnant mother to “just let me in there… I’ll make your troubles disappear.” While I can certainly sympathize with anyone facing an unexpected pregnancy—particularly a young woman whose life now seems thrown into disarray—I would counsel anyone to ignore people who advise women that pregnancy is a disease that needs to be cured at an “abortion clinic.”
I also agree with the tens of millions of other Americans who don’t want to live in a community with such open contempt for human life. But since politics is the art of compromise, I’m fine if some folks in NYC and California want to exterminate their own kids. Furthermore, if Freedom of Religion and “Congress shall make no law”—once setting America apart from the entire world—mean anything, then pagans, atheists and other people with pro-infanticide belief systems have a valid case to establish STATE laws of their liking. Life means very little to some people.
Accordingly, pro-abortion States should be respectful if people from other States want to live in communities that hold a more tolerant view of the weakest members of society. If God, Truth, Justice and/or Mother Nature favor one position over the other, time will bear this out. But the totalitarian Roe v. Wade approach of forcing every community across the country to accept what many Americans rightly regard as “baby killing” right in their own neighborhoods is a recipe for chaos.
No matter how much scientific evidence can be presented, greedy abortionists, lying media stooges and “dispassionate” academic cyborgs will continue saying whatever they want about tiny “embryos” that can’t feel pain and inhuman “fetuses” who are ripe for harvesting. The enormity of their cruelty—and lust for worldly power—has no limits.
And the enormity of what America has tolerated since 1973 can only be put into proper perspective when we consider how far America had already fallen in prior generations. Not only in another egregious SCOTUS decision that I’ll discuss next, but also the general arch of Nationalist myopia that seized hold of America over the past century (I’ll get to that right afterwards).
Roe v. Wade was not the most Disastrous Supreme Court Decision
What could be worse than seven activist judges overturning State laws on a whim and imposing abortion on demand across the nation? For the 20th century, only one SCOTUS decision comes to mind in that lowly category: the 1948 Shelley vs. Kraemer ruling that nullified Freedom of Association, decimated dozens of once thriving urban communities, and set the stage for further Constitutional assaults in subsequent decades.
All of this willful urban carnage was inflicted so a small group of sanctimonious political extremists could grandstand about “racism” and pretend that “access to white neighborhoods is a universal human right,” to paraphrase a conservative commenter from another website.
Why blacks (and the Jews pushing the Shelley case) would want to live in “racist” white neighborhoods in the first place has never been explained, as far as I can tell. As of 1948, blacks and other “minorities” were already free to buy open land and build their own communities from the ground up, as many had previously done, or to find one of the thousands of existing neighborhoods in America that accepted black homeowners. But the activist lawyers pushing the Shelley’s lawsuit saw political force as the only means to their dubious goal.
These 12 selected cities (and many others in the U.S.) were vibrant cultural centers experiencing steady (often explosive) growth since at least 1850. Their growth saw little or no lasting impact from two World Wars and the Great Depression. But then the “lights went out” sometime in the 1950s and beyond—a phenomenon that rarely receives the honest scholarship it deserves. Here are the key population trends from 1900 to 2000 for those cities.
These numbers of urban losses, as incredible and unprecedented as they were, don’t come close to doing justice to the pain and suffering involved for the victims—including millions of poor black casualties of rich black poverty pimps. On the numbers side, if the 1900-1950 growth rates had stayed on track for the next 50 years, the total population gains by the year 2000 from those cities might have been about 20 million residents, not any losses at all. The 4.8 million population drop shown above is only based on a “static” approach of no expected gains—but that’s still a massive, largely involuntary, dislocation of people.
A reasonable person might ask: Why uproot and move out, away from friends, family and familiar surroundings, often to unknown parts of the country… IF cities were still safe and stable? This type of question is one that very few have bothered to publicly ask in the last few generations. Perhaps that’s because the apparent evidence suggests that many cities after about 1950 were no longer safe or stable.
The Freedom of Association that had previously been a bedrock principle encouraging America’s many thousands of free-standing businesses and communities to prosper was suddenly eliminated in 1948. Instead of people with a vested interest in the long-term profit, growth and stability of their local institutions, grandstanding judges and politicians in Washington—with no real interest in any of those positive outcomes—set civilization backwards for decades to come.
Thanks to their reckless national purification efforts against “bad attitudes” of some whites, the worst charlatans and demagogues from Marty King to Jesse Jackson and countless others were now emboldened to inflame hostilities to gain votes from their aggrieved followers, demonize white “racism” to excuse any black behavior, and garner favorable media coverage from willing accomplices who thrive on conflict. And racial divisions got dramatically worse after that.
Although the urban decline that began after the 1950 census is well known among academics, it is extremely rare to see anyone associate negative consequences with this 1948 Court case. The glowing Wikipedia page on Shelley vs. Kraemer says nothing at all about race riots or the millions of people driven out of urban communities following that “landmark” Supreme Court decision.
Anyone interested in a more detailed legal analysis of Shelley vs. Kraemer can refer to my SCOTUS essay from a few months ago. For today, I’ll only address some of the more popular excuses for why cities that had been steadily growing for over 100 years suddenly reversed course in the 1950s and never recovered.
Calm before the Storm: New York City in the 1950s
The Interstate Highway System begun in 1956 is a poor excuse (that some still make) for urban meltdown; those highways could just as easily have allowed rural Americans to continue flooding into the cities, as they had done during prior generations. Had anyone wanted to leave those cities in the 1920s or 30s or 40s, there were plenty of state roads and vast open spaces to go and build new communities; that did not happen in any significant degree before the 1950 census.
Britannica and other sources confirm that there were no significant U.S. race riots in the 1950s. The first riots of the 1960s began in Harlem (1964) and Watts (1965) with hundreds more over the next decade. In all but one of the dozen examples in the table above, urban population peaked at the 1950 census (Newark peaked in 1930). All twelve example cities lost population during the 1960 census and kept declining for decades.
The Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision that stripped local authority at public schools under the guise of racial fairness certainly contributed to urban decline. However, it was the pivotal 1948 Shelley ruling the opened the door to federal interference on local housing and also race relations that the 1954 Brown decision merely continued.
Up through the 1940s, cities were bustling cultural centers home to millions of working-class citizens of various ethnicities (e.g., Irish, Polish, Italian, German, Jewish, etc.) with schools that made an honest effort to provide kids with a meaningful education. The common dismissal of “white flight” mocks the suffering of millions of those American citizens and masks the racial hostilities that black militants and Jewish lawfare artists were inflicting upon the nation.
This was an intentional Slaughter of Cities, as one alternative writer put it in his 2003 book (which I have not yet read, other than the related book review and some of his other articles).
As to the ethnic-religious worldview of the ones pushing the Shelley lawsuit, Wikipedia now boasts:
The fact that 4 of the 5 Jewish lawyers involved in the 1948 Shelley assault intentionally hid their clan loyalties (as admitted by Judeo-centric editors at Wikipedia) seems to indicate a guilty conscience by bad actors. Furthermore, Jewish members of Congress, Hollywood and Big Media have been fanning the flames of racial hostilities since at least the 1930s in America, with numerous wars and countless millions of deaths to show for it. To this day, the overwhelming majority of Jewish media elites celebrate racial violence and economic terrorism as “peaceful protests” for “civil rights” and “affirmative action.”
If any of that scourging of the cities was “accidental,” the many thousands of politically active Jews in the U.S. could have worked to reverse that ridiculous decision in subsequent decades. Quite obviously, that did not happen. By any reasonable reading of the organized lawfare that led to the 1948 Shelley decision, this was deliberate ethnic cleansing aided by badly indoctrinated (or willfully malicious) judges.
So yes, the paranoia, bigotry and predatory behavior of some Jews (or any other tribalist cohort) are valid issues needing principled and appropriate responses. But that doesn’t justify so many people (usually “sponsor me” weasels on the internet) who scapegoat “The Jews” for every problem in the world. Actually, it’s the unprincipled, unhinged hysterics against All Things Jewish that gives politicians aligned with Talmudic Pharisees their favorite marketing claim that everyone hates us for no reason whatsoever! And the unnecessary hostilities on both sides of the “Jewish Question” are unfortunate for everyone.
More importantly, any “true American patriots” on the political scene during the 1940s and 50s completely failed to organize and fight back against the Nationalist uprisings that had been brewing since the 1890s. Most of those events had little or nothing to do with Jewish advocacy in politics, entertainment or mass media. With faux populism and ethnic tribalism running wild in our land, the past century-plus of Nationalist expansion has not received a fraction of the attention it deserves. Certainly not from jingoistic FCC broadcasters or feckless government school teachers. Usually not from alt-right “sponsor me” goofs either.
As noted before, the enormity of what America has tolerated with abortion on demand since 1973 (like the enormity of the 1963 JFK assassination or the disasters of two World Wars) can only be put into proper perspective when we consider how far America had already fallen in prior generations.
While Single-Issue Extremists were Sleeping: Brief Timeline of ‘Nationalist’ Expansion
If you settle for the false options of National Socialism or Global Socialism, I suppose a person could make arguments for either one that might sound reasonable. If we throw in the distractions of dubious “traditions” and all sorts of sacred objects, that just clouds the picture even more. And while legions of “sponsor me” cucks are busy pillow fighting about such delicacies, our ruling authorities rest comfortably in power.
On the general topic of “nationalism,” it’s important to remember that America’s original European settlers had nothing to do with that tribalist fantasy as it is promoted today. Those brave souls who risked everything and turned a pagan wasteland into thriving communities, schools and businesses all shared a common vision of walking away from the corrupt European statism of their forefathers. The ancient religion of divine rulers and sacred objects or the modern incantation of “blood and soil” was the last thing on people’s minds.
Unfortunately, by the 1780s our Revolutionary Royals decided to re-inject some Olde World nationalism into their new Constitution imposed on previously “free and independent States.” That included national mail delivery (heavy control of mass communications), national taxing authority, national voting rights, national “patent” monopolies, national “copyright” privileges, complete national control over immigration, and a national military. A National Banking charter was granted in 1781 and then centralized under Washington control in 1791.
Although few American “patriots” fought for any of that nationalism during the bloody civil war against England, that’s what people got. Lincoln’s illegal blockade and subsequent invasion of the South in the 1860s further advanced the cause of nationalism.
While the American public never expressed any significant desire for national control over local affairs, the seeds planted by Washington, Hamilton, Lincoln and other “eloquent brutes” eventually sprouted. Some of the biggest, yet widely overlooked, instances of national mania crept forward beginning in 1909, the 100-year anniversary of the birth of “great” nationalist warrior, Abe Lincoln. And the cancer only grew after that.
Since 1909, America has gotten infinitely more nationalistic, almost always without the approval of voters or specifically against the expressed Will of the People. You may notice that nationalized “abortion rights” only came about towards the end of this drift.
Some highlights of 20th Century U.S. Nationalism:
- National Tax on Corporations (1909)
- First Politician on a regular U.S. Coin: 1909 Lincoln Penny; similar transitions would occur in 1932 (Washington quarter), 1938 (Jefferson nickel), and 1946 (Roosevelt dime)
- National income tax (1913) opens door to Congressional spending on anything and special-interest grift
- National banking cartel (closed in 1836, restarted 1913)
- National democracy crusade #1 (1917-18) kills millions and gains nothing for the U.S.
- Chicago Cubs baseball owner adopts musical tribute to National Pride as marketing stunt during World Series (1918)
- Nationalized broadcasting cartels (1927) lead to heavy censorship in the 1930s and beyond
- Faces of National politicians carved into a mountainside (begun 1927, finished 1941)
- Nationalized home loans (1932) sets the stage for “redlining” and further federal home-wrecking in 1948
- Nationalized Unions (1935) immediately leads to chaos and blockades and more economic malaise
- Nationalized retirement slush fund (1935) swindles millions of oldsters into quitting work forever—a new “tradition” based entirely on lies, laziness and servility
- Nationalized wage controls (1938) inject Washington’s planners into delicate business decisions across the country, then spawn even more turmoil during WW2
- National democracy crusade #2 (1941-45) kills tens of millions and gains nothing for the U.S. (e.g., American cities decimated by domestic saboteurs in the 1950s, etc.)
- NFL shows support for FDR’s crusade by inserting ‘National Anthem’ into the game (1941), a tradition “Hatched during one war, institutionalized during another”
- Nationalized corporate health “benefits” (early 1940s) grow out of WW2 wage controls and soon get most Americans hooked on third-party health insurance
- Nationalized college subsidies (1944, smaller steps before that in 1862 and 1918) supplants over 300 years of American reliance on mentoring and apprenticeships; gives rise to an academic priesthood of experts with no experience who would soon serve as the cheering section for the welfare-warfare state and unprecedented National controls over most facets of American life
- National destruction of neighborhood covenants (1948) abolishes Freedom of Association—see Sidebar on Shelley court ruling; as for the average black American who just wanted to live in peace, the 1948 ruling only derailed opportunities for millions of people who were now stuck in urban ghettos often run by black demagogues who love to shout about “racism” on prime-time news
- Nationalized tax breaks for approved “marriages” (1948) spawns right-wing posturing on “family values” and the LGBTQ push for a gov’t stamp of approval for their sexual partnerships a generation later
- Nationalized “non-profit” charities (1954) triggers an explosion to now 2 million such tax-favored organizations, with puritanical anti-business sentiment rampant
- National democracy crusade #3 in Korea (officially 1950-53, U.S. invasion started in 1945) kills millions and promotes USA into role of international police force
- National democracy crusade #4 in Vietnam (officially 1955-75, French warfare started in the 1940s) kills millions and briefly triggers an anti-war response on U.S. college campuses
- Nationalized highway system (1956) boosts Big Box retailers and Big Auto, crushes local businesses
- Nationalized racial revenge, Part 1 (1957) enacts special rights for blacks; encourages black militants to “protest” throughout the South and soon brings the period of peaceful black migration to the North to an end
- Nationalized free food for fat people eliminates any meaningful quality controls for dispensing personal welfare (1964); U.S. obesity rates soar afterwards
- Nationalized racial revenge, Parts 2 and 3 (1964 and 1965) enact more special rights for blacks; triggers 750 race riots and over “15,000 separate incidents of arson,” from 1964 to 1971, leaving “many black urban neighborhoods … in ruins” as NYT later admits
- Nationalized primary and secondary education (1965) leads to fossilized standards, administrative micro-management and eventually “woke” political advocacy in the classroom
- Nationalized male/female hiring decisions (1965) leads to hundreds of thousands of cases of arbitrary Thought Crime harassment of businesses by the EEOC
- Nationalized Medicaid/Medicare (1965) now costs taxpayers nearly $2 trillion per year just for those two programs and has caused medical expenses to skyrocket for everyone
- Nationalization of birth control policy (1965 Griswold decision) allows Supreme Court to enter bedrooms in all 50 states; opens the door for abortion debacle eight years later
- National immigration reform (1965) gives night sweats to hardline American Nationalists for the next 60 years; many claim that America was almost perfect before the ((wrong type)) of dirty foreigners were allowed to crash the party
- Nationalized worker safety (1970) with federal agency powers to write/enforce/judge their own rules
- Nationalization of all local air and water pollution (1970) with similar expansive federal powers
- Nationalized Racial Revenge, Part 4: Abolishing merit testing at private businesses, promoting worthless college “degrees” (1971 Griggs decision)
- CBS Studios and the Ms. Foundation launch the star-studded album “Free to Be… You and Me” (1972) to promote “gender neutrality” and boys acting more like girls; ABC network turns that into a TV series 16 months later and during the 1970s and 80s kids at government schools were subjected to this early LGBTQ “identity” culture throughout the nation; most parents did nothing to oppose it
- Nationalized abortion ruling (1973) invalidates child protection laws in all 50 states
INTERMISSION: If we’re being honest, that’s a lot of advancement of Deep State control in America, with extremely little push back from the public. After the January 1973 Roe decision, the D.C. Imperials kept marching forward, for the most part.
And where was the principled resistance from the Right? If conservatives ever take a break from watching sports, napping at church and waving Old Glory… they would do well to consider the question posed by this next image (hat tip to Unz commenter “Al Liguori”):
With precious little freedom remaining by 1973, most Country Club Republicans gave up on “conserving” anything of value. But far from the corridors of power, a few cracks in the federal monolith soon appeared.
To avoid being swallowed in some pit of despair, I’ll note three significant advances for personal freedom over the next 50+ years after Roe v. Wade—along with the accompanying drifts into more National fervor.
Legacy media largely ignores one such example (transportation “deregulation”), openly attacks the other (“home schooling”), and probably wishes the last one (privatizing the internet) never occurred. These three positive events are noted below as *setbacks* for the National Blob.
From January 1973 forward, other major steps in the Nationalization of America included:
- Nationalization of Healthcare Maintenance Organizations (1973 HMO Act) fossilizes U.S. medicine and continues trend of skyrocketing health costs
- Nationalized home loans for the poor (1977 CRA) politicized banking, heightened racial tensions and got exploited by the Clinton regime in the 1990s; risky loans to low-credit homeowners led to a thumping $14 trillion in losses during the housing crash of 2007-09
- Nationalized energy policy (1977 DOE) soon killed nuclear energy, crushed coal power plants, and froze out new refineries for decades
- Desperate times yield rare *setbacks* for the National Blob: Jimmy Carter and Congress “deregulate” federal airline, railroad and trucking cartels (1978-80) to ease runaway inflation, infuriating unions but saving consumers trillions since then… more progress against federal abuse than 20 years of Reagan-Bush
- Nationalization of education expanded (U.S. Dept of Ed 1980); test scores sank, woke fragility soared; but some resisted…
- Another *setback* for the National Blob: A small group of Christian parents and activists take back ownership of their children’s education, with no help from organized religion (a tiny population in the 1960s and 70s, gaining broader support in the 1980s and beyond); these organic community schools reach far beyond the “home” and now involve millions of kids who gain the benefits of being socialized but not lobotomized
- A Giant Leap for Eco-Fascism: National ‘Clean Air’ Enabling Act Amendments boost mandatory self-incrimination to prove “continuous compliance” (1990); eco-zealots would continue their blood lust a generation later at even greater cost
- National democracy crusades in the Middle East (1991-Present) kill millions and waste $8 trillion since 2001
- Major *setback* for the National Blob: Control of the internet transfers from military-university hands to the general public (first website 1991, privatized 1995); once freed from government control, it eventually allows independent news sites to challenge official narratives (bypassing entrenched FCC broadcasters) for the first time since the 1930s—easily the biggest “oopsie” in Deep State history
- Complete National meltdown after ((someone)) orchestrated a high-profile but limited retaliation on 9-11-2001, causing about 3,000 American casualties; former cheerleader G.W. Bush soon launches deadly invasions of Afghanistan (Oct 2001) and Iraq (2003) just as his Israeli sponsors had long desired; further U.S. invasions of Libya and Syria would proceed as planned under the Obama regime
- FCC National broadcasters would use their immense privileges to howl about a ‘War on Terror’ for the next 20+ years (2001-Present)
- “Polluters” become the new “heretics” as Earth-worshippers go on the offensive; caving to Green lobby pressure, five lawyers on the Supreme Court decide in 2007 that airborne plant food (CO2) is a global crisis that warrants massive new federal powers to punish human progress at a projected cost of over $100 trillion
- “Oh, SNAP!” Nationalized junk food for fatties gets a facelift of “Supplemental Nutrition” to remove the “stigma” of Food Stamp dependency (2008)
- Healthcare Nationalization, Act 2: The Obamacare “individual mandate” (2010) and other meddling help push U.S. health costs to nearly $5 trillion per year by 2023
- At the 50th anniversary of the National Welfare State (1964 to 2014) costs come in at a staggering $22 trillion, with millions trapped in despair and “conservatives” abandoning any meaningful opposition
- Donald Trump enters the White House in 2017, pledging to “drain the swamp”; National Debt explodes by $8 trillion (or 40%) under his watch and almost *none* of the National expansion from the last century is rolled back
- National Covid “vax” crusade (2020-22) disrupts schooling and the entire economy, but is finally stopped by SCOTUS conservatives who block Biden’s OSHA bureaucrats from imposing experimental mRNA “vaccines” on 80 million people; many Americans finally realize “something” isn’t right in Washington!
- National lesbian, sodomy and transvestite movements get a boost from the Biden administration (2021) and aligned Corporations (NFL, Target, Starbucks, Budweiser, etc.), pushing “woke” policies that few Americans voted for
- Nationwide invasion of third-world welfare migrants launched by Democrats and defended by FCC broadcasters (2021); where 1948 gave us the Slaughter of Cities, this attempt at ethnic cleansing was more comprehensive; yet MAGA loyalists and their Nationalist leader refuse to say anything about welfare reform to lessen the financial attraction
- A National Disgrace or a window into the soul of America? In July 2024, Congress gives over 50 standing ovations to a foreign warlord with a long record of anti-American hostilities; meanwhile rabid “white nationalists” wail that “ZOG” just sprang up out of nowhere and can only be defeated with more vigorous flag-waving and MAGA hats
- Donald Trump wins re-election to the Presidency in Nov 2024, promising that this time he means it on “draining the swamp”; yet his campaign features few specifics and heavy doses of bashing Democrats, China and immigrants to distract people from his past failures*
*With the help of South African immigrant Elon Musk and first generation Indian-American Vivek Ramaswamy, their Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) seems genuinely interested in minimizing federal waste and perhaps restoring some lost freedoms to American citizens. Facing immense opposition in Washington and its legacy media outlets—and with minimal organized support from fractious “conservatives”—DOGE will have a difficult time achieving any positive results, if they don’t give up first.
A More Subtle but Toxic ‘Standing Ovation’
People may notice that I left out one important milestone on our path to Nationalizing Everything. This was the radical stunt (at the time) of forcing school kids to stand and recite a daily Loyalty Oath of blind “allegiance” to our federal masters. In particular, the utterance “one nation… indivisible” conveys the notion that quitting the Empire justifies mass murder. And that’s considerably more harmful to the “American spirit” than Congressional cowards giving about 50 standing ovations to a foreign warlord one night last year.
Launched in 1892, conceived by a socialist preacher and promoted by government school administrators soon afterward, this expressly un-American gimmick has morphed into an untouchable taboo that George H.W. Bush exploited in his 1988 presidential campaign, neo-con belligerents now defend to the death, and “pro-choice” liberals are too bashful to mention.
Fast forwarding to today, with total National Debt (public and private) over $100 trillion, Americans have now trapped themselves in a dangerous pit of Federal-Corporate (fascistic) dependency. And none of the white or black or other ethnic Nationalist “leaders” have a clue what to do about it—except for scapegoating China, Russia, immigrants, Jews and/or the “far right.” So, yeah, I think blind nationalism leads to other moral failings.
Of course, there are those who still insist that “nationalism” is a force for good, because… well, duh! Of course it is. Flag. Voting. Eagle. Democracy. Apple Pie!
It’s so obvious. All my teachers at government school told me so.
For the rest of us, it would be good to ignore that hype and focus more directly on the many things in personal and public life that matter more than token symbols and tribal folklore.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision returned “abortion” back to the States, as it had been for over a century before seven delusional judges nationalized infanticide in 1973. This in itself should be recognized as progress for many reasons, including increased respect for Constitutional law and validation of community standards over remote central planning.
Of course, pro-abortion Democrats and their FCC media apologists are furious that they can no longer impose their version of morality on the entire nation. At minimum, during every election season for the foreseeable future we’ll be treated to their scare campaigns of emotional manipulation to celebrate their favorite “choice” and deceive some voters into thinking totalitarian Democrats are fighting for freedom. Hopefully, Republicans won’t cave under pressure or fall for the extremist position of imposing a single, inflexible anti-abortion mandate across the country.
If the fanaticism of the Abortion Nationalists spurs independents and mainstream conservatives to become more involved in community participation and less inclined to federal servility, this will be another good outcome from striking down the ghastly Roe v. Wade usurpation. If any couples are persuaded to think twice before “terminating” their living and growing offspring, that will be a bonus.
Email: [email protected]
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Our problem is that the national lawmaking body and the executive have so long been mired in corruption (of the corny capitalist variety) that the Supreme Court had to step in to fill the leadership vacuum. Now we have a court composed of a majority of five Roman Catholics dedicated to turning what’s left of our republic into a theocracy, a goal their Evangelical rivals have cherished right from the start. This element’s present top weapon against us is fetus fetishism, the highly emotional issue that is a war cry to anxious traditionalists the same way that our other national obsession, the freakish fixation with skin pigment, rallies them to resist the natural evolution of society.
The sacred scripture of “originalism” is a Federalist Society con game for the historically illiterate, created to undo the great leveling progress of the twentieth century. John Adams said of the Constitutional Convention, “It will never be pretended that any persons employed in this service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven.” Thomas Jefferson reacted to the creation of this novel government of unprecedented centralized power, “Our [Constitutional] Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts [Shays Rebellion]: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite [chicken hawk] to keep the hen yard in order.”
I would be fine with full abortion rights for non-Whites, even paid by government, and no abortion rights for Whites.
In 1972 the Jew porn industry gave America the films Deepthroat, Behind the Green Door, The Devil in Miss Jones and made sure they went mainstream. In 1973 the Supreme Court legalized the crime of abortion as way for Whites to get rid of the result of their newfound sexual freedom. Blacks don’t feel that same compulsion, the more children the bigger the monthly welfare check. An ever growing black population and an ever shrinking White population, a win-win for the Jews.
S.P.: “So is the complete joke of the Religious Right and its ongoing melodrama over their ONE Big Issue. As is the massive federal interference on literally everything from Agriculture to Energy and Retirement Planning to Wage Controls—and over a dozen other major areas affecting Americans daily—that many “pro-choice” or “pro-life” adherents would rather not discuss.”
Exactly.😏
“…and over a dozen other major areas” ….
.. such as welfare; including welfare for other countries (eg Israel), welfare for corporations ( eg Musks incs), such as welfare for domestic or foreign individuals. 😏
Plus “social security” , medicare, medicaid etc.
All entirely unconstitutional, as is the FBI, the CIA, federal reserve monopoly, as is federal immigration control.😏
The list goes on and on, and on.
It would be one thing if any of this $hit actually worked, but as with even everything government does that _is_ fully constitutional (eg the post office), government control/ interference in market processes always fails and makes everything actually worse.
See: “Why Government Doesn’t Work”:
“This governments grown, to big for it’s boots,
We’ve got to cut it back down, right down to its roots”
Song: “New Revolution”:
Video Link
Regards, onebornfree
1whoknows234atgmaildotcom
Lots of good point.
Video Link
ROE vs. Wade, is about the one thing women never talk honestly about. It’s their insistence that their will should never be opposed. And… will is the antithesis of love.
Jed, Should we have offered white people from Tennessee who call their sister mommy, free abortions. I know that’s pretty racist of me to say and probably hurtful. Please consider it, just an educational aid and please accept my apologies for stereotyping European-Americans from Tennessee.
I say let Black Biatches and Woke Wenches kill their kids.
I would even support infanticide for this.
Who wants black women having more kids? Blacks cause enough trouble.
Who wants some green-haired woke wench as a mother?
Rightists often say leftists are mushy soft-headed do-gooders with an overly sentimental view of humanity while they themselves are hardnosed realists, but so many so-called conservatives are all sentimental and gooey about the ‘sanctify of life’ and such BS.
Life is not sacred. We evolved from apes. We’re civilized beasts.
We try not to kill, we try not to do harm, we try to be neighborly. But we are no saints, and women who want to kill their own kids are undeserving to be mothers.
Indeed, the fact that they want to kill their own kids settles the argument there and then.
Women who want to kill their own kids shouldn’t be mothers to those kids.
Let them kill. Let them do fetucide.
For centuries the term used in English law and medicine was foeticide – the intentional killing of a foetus. It was an offence and felony under the criminal law, and which recognized the foetus as having the capacity of a being of conscience or being of equity. It was not, and never will be, about the foetus having legal rights.
FOETUS (Lat.) In medical jurisprudence.
An unborn child; an infant in ventre sa mere.
FOETICIDE.
In medical jurisprudence. The act of criminal abortion. 1 Beck, Med.
Jur. 288; Guy, Med. Jur. 133. (Cyclopedic, 1922)
Reading through all 8,400 words of this essay, looking for something with which to disagree, I must admit to having had quite a difficult time of it. The only thing I could come up with is a quibble with: “After centuries of squalor, the Corporate Church took a fancy to exploiting peasants to erect thousands of pretentious castle ‘churches…’” I’m not sure all of those peasants felt exploited. Some of them, with a simple and pure faith, probably believed they were dedicating their craftsmanship –even artistry– to the glory of God, and for some of us, it is their intent that has triumphed down the ages. By contrast, the brutalist style of many of houses of worship today is a perfect backdrop for the brutalist theology (if it’s not the sacramentalization of abortion and genital mutilation of the babes who make it past that hurdle, it’s race-baiting or the glorification of militarism) on offer within those walls.
Other than that, it’s a superb article.
People need to realise – the US Constitution, widely ignored as it has been, does not make the Supreme Court ‘supreme’ in US law. The supreme power in the USA is actually Congress, because:
The US Constitution gives Congress UNLIMITED powers to impeach any and all federal judges including Supreme Court Justices, merely for ‘lack of good behaviour’ … i.e., making bad decisions, legislating from the bench, etc. No proof or even allegation of ‘crime’ is necessary.
But Congress almost never uses these powers, implicitly submitting to the ‘rule by judges’ scam, which, as Unz’s Israel Shamir has noted, is a very Jewish idea, as judges are the branch of government typically closest to the oligarchy.
The ‘correct’ response to Roe v Wade or other such decisions illegally attacking states’ rights, would be to immediately impeach all Supreme Court Justices who voted for it … not to wait half a century for the Justices to die off or retire, and hope that some new sensible president will appoint better Justices and judges.
This below is perhaps the absolute low point of USA Supreme Court ‘justice’. On this topic I perhaps depart from most Unz commenters. The USA did fine with no death penalty executions for nearly 10 years 1967-77, and I believe any Supreme Court Justice still favouring the death penalty should be instantly impeached and removed.
When should politics supersede the inalienable right to life of a living human baby?
Whose presence is the direct result of a choice made by the person whose body the baby temporarily resides.
The Supreme Court knew better when they ruled that the baby was “the mother’s body” in 1973 but they chose politics instead.
Then in 1989 DNA.fingerprinting science confirmed what every rational person already knew, that the fetus is a living human individual person.
But for political reasons the court ignored their error for nearly 30 years resulting in American women murdering over 750,000 babies per year.
Thats a lot of people becoming new murderers every year. That a huge attack on ethics, morality and the inalienable rights of others.
Abortion is the worst genocide in earths history.
Regarding this part: the ‘tribalist fantasy’ of ‘nationalism’, an emphasis on ‘blood and soil’, is ‘promoted today’ as a matter of exigency — it’s necessary to preserve majority white nations, and for the survival of the white race — before ‘risking everything’ to ‘turn pagan wastelands into thriving communities’, Europeans ‘risked everything’ just to cross the Atlantic in fragile wooden ships — mass secure global travel wasn’t possible back then, it wasn’t the demographically menacing phenomenon it is today — really only Europeans explored the globe and made significant efforts to settle ‘pagan wastelands’ — so the early European settlers didn’t have to worry about thousands of racial aliens landing on their soil every day and eventually overwhelming them.
In any case, via the Naturalization Act of 1790, citizenship was restricted to ‘free white persons of good character’, indicating they did have a racial conscience — there was some consciousness of the importance of race.
To me it seems obvious that the Pro-Life platform is part of the bulwark erected in the aftermath of that hyperactive corporal’s stunning success, part and parcel of never again. Greatest-Ally-ism and Abortion-is-Murder-ism are suggestions implanted together to combat in America what was here before, namely scientific racism and the new frontier in eugenics.
The Catholic Church herself only had the standard of dysgenics pressed into her hand in the 70s, before which her posture was much less unserious.
Where the pregnancy is illegitimate, there is a positive duty to abort. It is true that abortion is the woman’s weapon: it is the final recourse in case of invasion. The rate of abortion is an unsparing report on the state of the society. Clearly, in the deepest recesses of their minds, women understand that the country, the civilization, is besieged. They exercise their ancient veto. It is the responsibility of men to respond to the active threat.
What is the object of a movement designed to pry open wombs, to ‘democratize’ access to the future.
The living human individual baby is innocent.
Killing the baby doesn’t punish the guilty.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
In the rare case that a sex crime results in pregnancy, it doesn’t end until the innocent baby is born. Just as the psychological effects exist beyond the initial offence.
That’s life when we have a constitution with inalienable rights. Get over it.
I noticed this:
What does he mean by “black behavior”? I’m sure the author meant “bad behavior” and that was a typo.
Here’s another great quote:
What a principled gentleman this author is. For a moment, I thought “Whoa, this guy is starting to sound like a nazi!” But then, after he wrote this, I thought “Oh, thank goodness. At least he’s not a nazi.”
Good God. While I agree with Mr. Penfield wholeheartedly, that was quite a long hyperventilating rant.
Perhaps the most eloquent rebuttal of the stupidity in the Griswold-Roe “jurisprudence” is Potter Stewart’s dissent in Griswold, which deserves to be quoted at length:
‘Reading through all 8,400 words of this essay, looking for something with which to disagree, I must admit to having had quite a difficult time of it.’ — IreneAthena
I’d say the same about the first 1,500 words — nothing to dispute. But the author displays a kind of magpie writing style, flitting about from topic to topic, while inserting periodic touts about the great insights to come, if the reader will just persevere through another thousand or two words.
Sorry, couldn’t be arsed. Double the word count, and readership drops by three quarters. Some other influential personages in this vicinity might benefit from this observation.
The kitchen-sink approach to political analysis. Zzzz.
On your “immigrant bashing” point, certain legal immigrants do have hostile and seditious behaviors, Mr. Penfield, and, if anything, we have far too little bashing of the relevant subgroups.
The unhappiness on the fruited plain is, however, with illegal invaders not “immigrants” but you apparently want to carelessly muddy the waters with your “blind nationalism” idea.
Here are some useful concepts: an affinity toward your own people and nation (nationalism), good. Automatic wariness toward foreigners (FGM, cousin marriage, religious supremacism, unassimillability, welfare seeking, criminality), good. Sappy, feeble, mindless, childish, worship of foreigners and “others,” bad. Imperialism, jingoism, bad.
While I somewhat agree with the gist of your statement, it better serves to point out how different races of people require a different set of rules to live by.
Western Europeans can create and maintain a functional society with relatively minimal government involvement/interference. Negroes, at the opposite end of the biped spectrum, require strict and intensive local authority in order to minimally function as a small subgroup of a large host society. Left to their own management, the best they can accomplish are militant tribal affiliations that are violent and wildly unstable.
If the US were still 90% white or more, it’s possible the abortion topic would be quite a bit less important. Woke progressive liberal virtue signalers don’t like to admit it, but one of the reasons they support abortion is because minorities make the most use of it. Libertarians support it because they are short sighted individualists who would rather support nation wrecking policies than be accused of hypocrisy.
The ultimate projection is abortion supporters accusing those against it as making it a “hill to die on” issue, when in fact that’s exactly what it is for the pro abortion side.
“Abortion is the worst genocide in earths history.”
I would never have agreed with you until last year I saw the total aborted babies since 73 surpass the number of all American men killed in wars. How many geniuses, inventors, scientist, artists, craftsmen, or general nice people were snuffed out by the one person who should have loved them? Personally I blame the sexual revolution on this. The feminists were well aware a slutty female would never bond. Unlike the experts, I think that inability to bond includes children. Two abortions and then snip, snip goes the ovaries in a partial spay.
As for the church, Evangelicals are the Talmudic Jews of Christianity. They also make a bundle of money with their opposition of abortion via their true believers. Do they even care about the babies? I think not. If they did they did, they wouldn’t sound like raging feminists when it comes to the designated baby daddies and their lack of choice. No baby daddy, and their mandated money, at the end of the pregnancy, how many women might actually start managing their reproductive health?
The whole divisiveness of this issue has provided much needed distraction for the carcinoma known as the managerial state (arguably American fascism). One side screeches my body. Dearies your body chose to get pregnant. While the other side screams life as they ready the masses for another war for Israel and end times. Please, do shut up. I’ve refused to vote the issue since I turned 18, since I was raised to believe in limited government. Think about it, if there were no government blessed third party paying for healthcare, who would even know what you and your doctor were doing?
The author seems to think that people should reproduce outside of a nation? lol
Yes, good Gentile. Abort the nation. Save the children.
Point the finger at ‘kikes’ but don’t look inward at the zero in you.
I bet this guy listens to punk rock. If so, thats why you’re impotent. Thats why no one likes you. Thats why you are powerless to change the nation, and why your superiors changed it for you.
Perhaps I am the only confused reader but I found the term “nationalism/nationalist” in this article confusing.
At times the author seems to use it to mean “nation-wide,” other times to mean “federal/federalist.” Some of the examples he cites increase the confusion: for example I fail to see in what sense the Welfare program, imposed nation-wide, arguably an infringement of states’ rights, is a “nationalist” program.
I also fail to see how the huge sovereign debt the US owes to multinational banks whose ownership is not “Federal-corporate” is a “fascistic dependency” and how only “blind nationalism” makes us “scapegoat” the Jews (the author throws in “China, Russia and immigrants” to obscure the issue, although nobody ever blames these three for the unpayable national debt:
”…total National Debt (public and private) over $100 trillion, Americans have now trapped themselves in a dangerous pit of Federal-Corporate (fascistic) dependency. And none of the white or black or other ethnic Nationalist “leaders” have a clue what to do about it—except for scapegoating China, Russia, immigrants, Jews and/or the “far right.” So, yeah, I think blind nationalism leads to other moral failings.”
The author’s insistence that “blind nationalism leads to other moral failings” and making it central to the abortion controversy is odd.
“ Please, do shut up. I’ve refused to vote the issue since I turned 18, since I was raised to believe in limited government. Think about it, if there were no government blessed third party paying for healthcare, who would even know what you and your doctor were doing?”
Government brought you the constitution that protects your inconvenient life from being murdered.
I think a lot of people, especially the women choosing to get an abortion, were led to believe it was okay to do so because it was legal, the law of the land, and less restrictive than getting a pharmacy prescription or buying alcohol.
Three things,
There was a poster here who gave testimony of knowing a female sergeant who during Desert Storm deliberately had an abortion so she could have combat duty on her resume. Imagine if the judges had that on their desks when deliberating?
The UN Charter commits every nation to a program of socialism both for itself and every other nation. Communism is what they want period and they decided the best place to build their sacred palace? New York!
and with all the author wrote arrives Climate Change of course which if anyone including our woefully uneducated religious leaders had actually read the good book would know this is the work of God! It’s an amazing read how the good book mentions all of it including even snow storms!! Hey, author you’re not in Florida by any chance lol? The Bible even provides the solution to it all!! Why they prefer to follow Al Gore is very perplexing. Lies and liars it covers up so much sin. America should have printed on its money In God We Fear not the nonsense of in God we trust. And they certainly should have made laws concerning religion in America by following Christ’s words. I’ve always thought that the nations should have churches based on the country as in the Canadian Church of Christ, the American Church of Christ, the Mexican Church of Christ, etc etc with one school for training ministers. What we got instead is a kingdom divided against itself will never stand and she certainly doesn’t stand as a testimony to much of anything. a laughing stock!! Just look at that episcopalian at the Prayer breakfast. wow! how that passes for Christianity is shocking? but St. paul warned we would see it. St. Peter and the way of truth will be brought into disrepute?
Communists love war and through it they are taking empire now subtly until the arrival of another Mao!!!!
Good musings!!!
We are being trolled. The entire pro- and anti-abortion thing has mostly been made up to distract us from class war (you may not believe in class war, but class war believes in you, and your side is losing).
Most people, if you ask them precisely, will clearly agree that an abortion in the third or even second trimester is creepy and disgusting and yes it’s killing babies. Even ardent “pro-abortion” feminists.
Most people also believe, if you ask them precisely, that a fertilized human egg is not a baby. It looks like a soap bubble, or later maybe a fried egg. Most people think that the process of in vitro fertilization, that typically involves the destruction of numerous fertilized eggs, is not murder. A potential human being is not a human being, hence the word “potential.”
Row v. Wade may have been bad law, but it was the law of the land for a long time, and most people could live with it. Stare decis. The general policy of abortion on demand early in pregnancy, when the embryo neither looks nor acts like a baby, and basically no abortion later on, when the fetus does look and act like a baby, has been broadly accepted by the US population and, for whatever it’s worth, is basically the policy across the entire western world.
There are people of good faith who will disagree with my view, but the people who repealed Roe v. Wade are not amongst them. That repeal was a gift to the corporate Democrats, designed to roil the populace on things that the rich do not care about either way, and distract us from things the rich do care about like bank bailouts and cheap-labor immigration policies.
So now we have states where babies can be aborted in the 9th month, and states where the destruction of a single cell is murder. Sorry, I don’t see this as either progress or freedom.
When I see a post like this, I wish Unz offered a reaction of “Punk.”
This guy is all over the map. Anyway, sure abortion is evil. It’s also one of our few eugenic policies. Or was.
It continues to mystify me that no one wants to recognize that the primary beneficiaries of legal abortion are the men who, in wiser societies, were always held responsible for the support of the babies they co-created.
Women didn’t want Roe v. Wade. Polls taken at the time of the decision found overwhelming opposition to legalized abortion among women. That’s when women hadn’t yet been bludgeoned by the assumption that they were totally responsible for the babies they carried.
The Roman Catholic Church is not a one-issue church, but it has always understood that life is the gift of God, not to be willfully snuffed out by anyone at any stage. That’s a very important “issue”, if you please.
“ Row v. Wade may have been bad law, but it was the law of the land for a long time, and most people could live with it. ”
Certainly not the millions of people who it allowed to be murdered.
I saw someone make a good point recently. A newspaper will refer to a “foetus” (US “fetus”) in the context of abortion but to an “unborn child” in the context of expulsion of illegal immigrants.
The degradation of America began over 200 years ago – http://www.crushlimbraw.com – it just takes time for Old Scratch to converge the institutions – Christianity into churchianity – for instance. I cannot think of a single institutions which is not converged – can you? Antonio Gramsci not only was correct in describing his methodology, his prognosis was spot on.
So who’s to blame? First, look in DaMirror….and then begin the process of restoration……I don’t expect to personally see any large scale results in my lifetime of my attempts to reverse this Satanic abomination….but I’ll be damned if I’m not part of the process. In fact, if you read the New Testament, that is exactly what those disciples/apostles did……and in 70 AD the whole freaking temple – which by that time was nothing more than the abode of DaSynagogue of Satan as described by Jesus Himself – was destroyed as promised in Matthew 24. Unfortunately, DaDiaspora remains and has gained rulership of Western Civilization…..why? Because of OUR LACK OF DISCERNMENT between good and evil – especially by reducing Christianity into an infantile, feminine churchianity – as described in Hebrews 5:11-6:2 – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Hebrews+5:11-14+maturity&updated-max=2022-06-07T12:52:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=0&by-date=false&m=1 – a list of headnotes on the subject from DaLimbraw Library.
Also, I fully realize this perspective has little interest for most folks – we simply have not been prepared educationally or churchianly to relate our spiritual lives with our material or worldly interests – which was precisely what Gramsci’s purpose intended – mission accomplished!
So……get your ass in gear and join the restoration…..but prepare for the collapse of our ‘temple of Old Scratch ‘ society – right now we stink to high heaven!
Thanks for that info. You make a couple good points, even if you may not realize it.
I see that you prefer the ancient Latin term “foetus” and the old English legal term “foeticide” over the more modern understanding of “infanticide.” Of course, most pro-abortion types agree with your ancient terminology to de-humanize children prior to birth. This helps support your insistence of no legal rights for people in their first 9 months of life.
Let’s recall that the terminology you’re holding onto comes from a period of severe ignorance as to medical science or any other practical science. I don’t see a need to be stuck in the past when modern science since the 1960s has taught us so much about human development, as detailed in the ‘Settled Science’ part of my essay.
No abortions under any circumstances is retarded and late term abortions are barbaric. The happy middle ground is a first trimester limit, 3 months to make a decision aye or nay. Oh course that will never be on the table as a viable option to put the issue to bed because of how worked up both sides get. It’s the perfect non-issue to burn up all the political energy in America while the ruling class continues to bleed the cattle dry.
Thank you for your energetic regurgitation. It is recognizably the feedstuff given out by ‘conservatives’, har har.
There is no good way out of the rhetorical dead-end at the intersection of a misapplication of the doctrine of Free Will and a bad faith misconception of Life.
Wow. Some of you just don’t get it. Human life starts at conception. The only gray area for taking a child’s life is when it is a threat to the mothers.
As a foundational principle, the US should not compromise as it did at the country’s founding.
Invenstion, usurpation and betrayal are hardly stare decisis.
Abortionism works just like Natural Selection. Stupid is as stupid does. Bring it back. And reward generously. Stem cells alone are worth a million.
Snap!, seeing one’s ugly reflection in the mirror brings the image of a punk for another unconscious projection.
This comment is so ignorant that it barely warrants a response. The fact that this kind of hatred is even allowed to be posted is disappointing. It’s not surprising though considering the cesspool of comments that is standard on this website. It’s too bad that Mr. Unz, or whoever claims to be moderating, doesn’t see that juvenile commentary like this cheapens the site overall.
Thanks though, Priss Factor, for leading with your backwards hate speech so I didn’t have to waste my time reading the rest of your comment. Garbage like this doesn’t contribute anything interesting to the discussion and makes you look dumb. As you draft your next worthless diatribe, think about your words and try to be more constructive and less bitter next time.
That’s a convoluted way of admitting that you can’t refute anything that I said.
My irrefutable logic and science is clear. You have no counter argument.
I would put it like this: men and women conceptualize freedom very differently. For men, freedom is about independence, dignity, and no persecution (specifically political/religious).
For women, freedom = license. Hence the endless crusades for promiscuity, abortion, no judgement etc… Women use the same vocabulary as men, but the words have a very different meaning.
The national debt is a real problem. However, I have never heard any citizen blame China.
Making abortion on demand into a “right” of “freedom of choice” went hand in hand with normalizing promiscuity and absolving women of any responsibility for preventing an unwanted pregnancy.
Unlike women in the 3rd world, even the most promiscuous American woman has at her disposal a plethora of inexpensive pharmaceutical means to absolutely prevent any unwanted impregnation, before sexual intercourse or soon after (“morning after pill”).
I remember medical articles published by reputed “scientists” three decades ago claiming that pregnancy is a deleterious, deeply debilitating (sic) condition for women, and that the best prevention is to cancel the menses altogether, which in themselves pose a great hormonal stress on a woman’s body every month, by taking the PILL! Without this stress a woman also becomes a more productive member of society who can realize her potential in full…
Women have had the opportunity to realize their “full potential” in the US by now (none of which involves maternity) and the results are far from impressive.
I wonder if the women who consider their pregnancy a nuisance and have abortions with less hesitation than having a hygienist appointment for teeth cleaning really have sincere empathy for the Palestinian babies (a nuisance too..) slaughtered en masse by Israel? I am sure Madeleine Albright was a supporter of the “freedom of choice.”
“A newspaper will refer to a “foetus” (US “fetus”) in the context of abortion but to an “unborn child” in the context of expulsion of illegal immigrants.”
Not all foeti are created equal…
The judges just took their bribes and made up Roe. The 10A said abortion was a state issue.
Only worse decision was plyler v doe 1982 where the judges took their million dollar mexican bribes and said illegal aliens have a constitutional right to free k-12!!!!!!!!!!!
All judges take bribes all the time. Look what they did to trump and alex jones and rudy g.
Here is your Pro-Life platform:
–
Here is the Bible:
From the end of the beginning, to the beginning of the end, God is pretty clear, ‘for He whose name is Jealous, is a Jealous God’:
I don’t debate tweens. You are free to read my other comments.
You should do a little less LOL and more reflection by loading your brain and soul with much needed wisdom requiring much reflection. It seems to me that you are one of those young millineal men reared by a single mother, never knowing what manhood smells like and never learned driving a stick shift.
Here let me help you a little. When all isms are gone and vanished in front of a colossal calamity and extinction is a distinct possibility, or even, a short life expectancy among natives, the birth rate will rise due to the omnipotent force of the base instinct of preservation of the specie.
In such a scenario, the male instinct is to initiate life by depositing his seed in the most fertile environment and the female instinct is to incubate and nurture life through its early vulnerabilities. This is a DNA program carved in the rock of the ages.
So when Feminism comes in as an imancipater of women into the slavery of permiscuity and the culture of “a hundred body count in one day, not just a slick deck but a flooded deck”; Feminism is in effect, preventing women from connecting to their natural base instinct. As you definitely do not know, one either works with nature’s program or one will be aborted by Mama nature in many ways at her disposal.
It is a crime to convince women especially young ones, with brains full of mush, that abortion is a right when at most it should be a means of last resort. It is said that the fetus becomes animated within the 4th month. At that time, the anima or soul is deposited into the body.
At some point, in some plane, in front of the Judge of all judges, this innocent soul will ask all those who conspired to abort it, what has it done to deserve its infanticide. First among all those questioned, will be the mother. Watch out you mothers!
As for you, my inexperienced millineal, load your brain before you injure innocent bistanders with your vacuous prose.
Who’s LOL? I’m not, are you?
I’m pleased with the optics.
Herrera was guilty, though, of cold blooded murder. He was identified by the man he shot and had evidence, a stolen gun, in his possession. If you want to argue an innocent man can be executed, first you have to find an innocent man. Herrera was a murderer who got what he deserved.
If one is to hang abortion on the pivot of promiscuity, instead of legitimacy and eugenics, then the solution is quite simple. Outlaw extramarital sex.
Make all extramarital sex rape. Make it a point of morality and law that women in fact cannot consent to sex outside the confines of marriage, just as children cannot consent to sex full stop. I mean I believe this already, but no one asked my opinion when drafting the laws.
In addition, extramarital sex can be made a property crime, against the parents if the woman is under the age of majority, and against the woman herself, if she has been released into her own custody. Only an insane person would agree to risk pregnancy without legal assurances of support, so she cannot consent.
Problem solved. No gander, no goosing. No tomcat, no kittens. No consent. And surely, then, no abortions.
Are we all happy?
Move to afganistan, please and spare us your pig ignorance .
Innocent life , oh heavens the innocent…
😢 😢 😢
🙄
People including babies, die all the Fucking time dumb shit.
No biggie.
Men don’t care and will not care. Only pretend.
Nor does their precious sky daddy.
And what was the recipe for this concoction that was supposed to reveal, by the swelling of her belly, that a lady had been stepping out on her man? Why, it’s right there in Numbers 5:17 — holy water and some dust off the floor of the tabernacle! It’s pretty unlikely that caused anybody’s belly to swell—ever— which would tend to make a jealous guy reluctant to put himself through the humiliation of confirming his suspicions with this particular ritual. I’m not sure what point you were trying to make by referencing this passage, but I file it under, “God has a sense of humor.” Obviously, the stuff wasn’t an abortifacient, either.
The other passages are nothing to LOL at, though. Just as the enemies of the ancient Hebrews came under the judgement of God (and these were far, far removed and in a different case entirely from the modern nation of Israel and its enemies/victims btw), so will we all one day have to answer to the Creator for the way we’ve lived our lives, how we’ve treated people. You can ask a Christian to explain John 3:16 to you, but I’ll tell you what, even though I believe I have that “fire insurance,” the thought of that day fills me with a holy dread, causing me to be… a little less bitchy … than I otherwise might be in conversations like these.
I have heard the argument that abortion is a ritual to appease the princes of this world, where children are burnt offerings sacrificed to Moloch, and friends. In my eyes, this is the most persuasive case in favor of a total moratorium, at least until the tides of history have calmed.
I do think the economy is eating children who should have been.
The men and women who refuse God’s gift of fruit to pursue the ambition of flowering in winter are deceived and risk dying with their bodies. But just as not all killing is murder, so not all evictions are illegitimate.
Priss Factor – nice work on all of your photo-journalism and video posts. More informative than 1,000 TV journos in Fake News.
If you’re still reading this thread, maybe you could be so kind as to post the photo of this young Jewish pro-abortion activist holding a sign blaring:
https://forward.com/news/511730/jewish-community-abortion-rights-ncjw-national-council-jewish-women-roe-wade/
Anti-abortion Christian Zionists should be aware of what their best friends of the Chosen Clan really believe. Add that to the unmitigated disaster following the Supreme Court’s 1948 Shelley decision that wiped out urban America. So much for “God blessing those who bless Israel.”
Hmmm… So says they guy posting a 500-word dissertation on the 1965 Griswold case.
As to “hyperventilating rants,” please see ANYTHING that comes from the many White Nationalist writers here that have literally nothing to say on matters of substance. I don’t see how shouting about White Pride will solve anything, but I know that many disagree.
I see another complaint by someone about my essay being “all over the map” … as in daring to fit 2 or 3 key topics into one essay, instead of the singular focus of ranting “abortion is Right or Wrong!” that some people apparently prefer.
I take it that some folk have never read a book (much longer than 8,400 words) or watched TV News (dozens of topics, usually pitched via misleading talking points).
In general, I think context is everything… particularly on “hot button” topics like abortion. In my opinion, our creeping National Socialism since the 1890s and empty *nationalistic* sloganeering are huge parts of how we got to a point where infanticide—deliberate “killing” of our own kids—is viewed as the height of human achievement.
That cultural decline didn’t start in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. Not by a long shot.
The author’s conservatism is sound and his writing, clear, but his article is intolerant, ill-tempered crankery.
Articles like this are why the Left wins, which is unfortunate because—except where the article derails itself by expressing gratuitous contempt for fellow Americans who would otherwise be the author’s allies—the article makes so many interesting points.
So, scapegoating the Jews for all the ills in the world empowers the Talmudists because they can point to irrational hatred? Sure, of course. This sleight of hand is called poisoning the well—all the rest of this essay is setting the stage to drop this lie in the Zio narrative.
The tipoff is the author’s use of “scapegoating” to describe all criticism of the Jews outside of what he also wants taken as now irrelevant, ie, criticism of abortion. Of course so-called scapegoating is morally wrong, but is criticism of what the Jews are doing in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, and the Ukraine scapegoating?
Buried right there, in the middle of confusing attributions, is the implication that the poor Jews can’t get a break—like they’ve never done anything wrong in all of human history and never can. But, let’s let Jews at the IHRA and their lackeys in the USCCB tell us what amounts to so-called anti-Semitisn—because “scapegoating” of the poor Jew is always morally wrong because the poor Jew has never done anything wrong. I’m not sure if Congress is using those exact words, but they might as well be because that is the unspoken premise behind the proposed legislation.
The bottom line of this essay is that criticizing abortion is now irrelevant and counterproductive, while criticizing moral ills like cosmopolitanism, usury, debt slavery, abortion, pornography, Hollywood, the music industry, open borders—name the societal ill—is implicitly anti-Semitic and inherently wrong.
How’s that? and why is it also anti-Semitic to criticize government narratives, like nineteen Arabs flying magic carpets into the WTC and Pentagon, or any of those mind-fuck memes like “trust the science,” etc.? How is that “anti-Semitic”?
The point of the ordeal of bitter water is to curse the misused womb, which is sterilized and evacuated.
The New Testament begins with a recitation of the genealogy of Christ, the true Son of the true Father, the true heart of the true vine, because Christianity is the faith that explains the world in terms of causality, priority, quality, fidelity, and paternity.
The ideology of innocence at birth is Liberalism, not Christianity. The notion that a baby is independent and not derivative, a legal unit and not properly someone’s son, is an enabling technology for Socialism, not Christianity. The same idolatry that would have us exalt the ugly, worship the diseased, and admire the unformed, teaches the moral perfection — indeed the moral authority — of children, and directs us to submit to a monstrous regiment of infants. And their grasping regents.
In this arena, as in many others, our mercy has been seized and is being held against our necks, to force us to watch our ruin impassive.
Well observed! H/t.
Whether those commenters in this thread who routinely swallow the glib lies and clumsy rationalizations they are fed* will learn anything from your sensible observation is another matter. After all, things are in no wise improved since the sage of Baltimore wryly noted that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
_____________
*By, for example, the arrogant, incoherent, and logorrheic author of the present shamelessly disjunct essay, all of whose salient points are made via table-pounding (i.e., incessant boldfacing) in preference to adroit composition and closely argued thought.
Alternatively, you could move back to Israel, and spare us yours. Word is that the surf’s up in Eilat.
Our LOL bully said: “Outlaw extramarital sex.”, is this girlyman or manlygirl for real?
Infidelity, has been outlawed for centuries Deckhand to preserve lineage and extended family bonds. Now shut up and go ask Chat GTP to alleviate your stuborn ignorance with regards to the destruction of infidelity to society and its impact on the number of abortions.
Nothing wastes more time than hearing an ignorant blowhard who can’t tolerate a different oppinion than his own. Most likely he is a millineal who looks for an excuse to be offended or in addition to looking for an excuse to be offended is a passive-agressive biatch who gives himself away by neurotically LOL at every opinion that project doubt on his own.
Nice kicking your ass kid on all levels, now we can all LOL at the little bully who never learned to play outside with the boys.
Have you ever heard of a Britannia Youth Movement?
Probably never. Open the description below the video.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060047698
“If one is to hang abortion on the pivot of promiscuity, instead of legitimacy and eugenics, then the solution is quite simple. Outlaw extramarital sex.”
You missed the point entirely.
Prostitutes– from the street workers to high-end call girls lead a more responsible promiscuous life (in the sense of avoiding pregnancy) and get fewer abortions than “liberated” women in America’s middle class and lower middle class.
I am not “hanging abortion on the pivot of promiscuity.” Abortion on demand is a crime against life and a nation-killing abomination. Promiscuity was sold as “liberation” from the patriarchal oppression and abortion on demand as liberation from responsibility. They go hand in hand.
Well, isn’t that precious? You know the thing males virtually NEVER talk about anywhere when this topic is discussed, including on comment threads?
They don’t speak about their own ACCOUNTABILITY. Males account for how the women got pregnant, they account for the heavy pressure they assert to non-wives they impregnated to get abortions, they account for the murders of women who refused to abort and they account for mindboggling levels of abandonment of children they’re responsible for.
So, might you be that one guy, Nobody, that is mature, responsible and decent enough to talk about those things?
“People including babies, die all the Fucking time dumb shit. No biggie.
A statement that any Israel-supporting Jew will proudly make.
A minority report. It is maddening to pick through the debris, trying to remember the way we were. I suppose we can only wait upon God for the chance to understand who we ought to be.
You know the article I’d like to see someone write about abortion?
One from the vantage point that someone’s abortion is nobody else’s business – unless the fetus has reached the generally-considered age of viability outside the womb. And, also in cases where it has reached viability but, has been medically evaluated with a severe health issue or the mother has.
I’ve had conversations over the years with a few people who claim to be anti-abortion and when I pointed out to them that I found it highly unlikely that they actually care about what happens to a pregnancy of a stranger across town – to a person, they all fell silent. Because they recognized how nuts it is to have the mindset of a zealot regarding a situation that has zero bearing on them and is happening to a stranger.
I then informed them that for most who want to limit the options of others, it’s really about control. That’s what their actual goal is. Dontcha know, none of them denied that. Lastly, all of them were followers of strident organized-religions. Their “opinions” and beliefs were coming from that – not from their own organic consideration.
So, the article we need is about this: someone’s abortion is nobody else’s business .
Steady on. Wouldn’t want to lose your eyesight.
20M Black babies have been aborted since Roe vs Wade. Imagine how much worse off the US would be if those animals had been born.
No darling. I have the point. You have the party line, hook and sinker too.
One of the explanations I have found interesting about a lack of organized resistance to Trump during this election is that the jewish oligarchs and elites that were behind Antifa and the leftist radicals from 2016-20 are feeling more threatened so they are actually backing Trump now as a matter of practicality. Jewish leaders in the US have already been proclaiming Trump “the most jewish-friendly president ever”. Even the rhetoric on TV on CNN/MSNBC and late-night talk shows are more of a jokey-humor about Trump than the outright vitriol of 7 or 8 years ago.
On the issue of abortion, I say “kill the child”
Video Link
Thanks for that too – it is quite helpful. It had never occurred to me that people might use the earlier term to obfuscate the reality of it.
I do not, however, prefer one over the other and I would agree that most people may not appreciate the term foeticide.
Contrast either, for example, with the choice between “She had an abortion” versus “She paid someone to kill her baby”. I find the term “had an abortion” to be more consistent with your observation of “terminology to de-humanize children prior to birth.”
My point about equity versus law or legal rights is that the living baby exists in the mother’s womb in fact or equity and that reality cannot be affected by law. If it is wrongful to kill the baby, then such cannot be changed by making it legal.
Virtually everything that people perceive as rights are in fact restrictions on what others can legally do to them. When a police officer says “You have the right to remain silent” it means in fact “We are prohibited from forcing you to say anything”.
My larger point was that the terms foeticide and infanticide were always directed at the perpetrator of the crime, such that the concept of the baby having legal rights did not arise. Sorry if I failed to make that clear. Excellent article and much appreciated regardless.
Thank you, Steve Penfield, for a very engaging and insightful essay.
Your examination of Shelly v Kraemer was particularly important. It’s both amazing and revealing that Roe gets so much fanatical (one issue) attention but few non-scholars or non-lawyers are familiar with the more consequential Shelly decision.
The modern American mind is beset with many contradictory, fanciful, and half-true notions; such as ‘All men are created equal’ and ‘America is a nation of Immigrants’. These are mental roadblocks. They put White identity and White continuity at a disadvantage.
For this reason, I was a bit surprised at your dismissal of ‘Blood and Soil’ claims by White advocates since (despite its German roots) the invocation of blood and soil does possess some legitimacy here. After all, (White) Europeans settled and created this productive, innovative, and enviable civilization. It’s our baby. And we’re slowly losing it through subversion, manipulation, machinations, and theft. Whites are facing an existential crisis. It will take overt White advocacy to reverse this unsought transformation. Don’t you agree?
Equally unfortunate, White advocates are at a unique disadvantage. Any expression racial preference–(when White)–is now deemed downright Hitlerian. This designation puts us in the American doghouse.
Who erected these debilitating taboos?
(This is a rhetorical question. We know precisely who.)
Core Americans (of European descent) are nevertheless facing displacement. Since the US is our creation, the unadvertised transformation is unfair and unjust. Yet we are at a grave disadvantage when even discussing our anxieties over this. Its racist!
But since all men are not created equal, there’s trouble ahead.
In any case, I want to thank you for reminding UNZ readers that the Shelly case was covered with Jewish fingerprints. If any SCOTUS decision in the past century steered America on the road to ruin, it was Shelly. (A Second Place Award however must go to Brown v. Board of Education.)
The modern SCOTUS has usurped legislative (i.e., democratic) power to a degree that the Founders never intended.
I agree that abortion should be restricted, but this “life begins at conception” nonsense would also outlaw IVR, which was how my son was born. “God” was aborting our children through miscarriage. Medical science allowed us to become parents by “killing” a few extra zygotes that would have been aborted by “God” anyway. So forgive me if I don’t share your sanctimonious nonsensical viewpoint.
*trembling* Must. Not. Press…the. LOL. button.
No. No, I won’t do it, because whenever I press the LOL button, I would have it be understood quite unambiguously as an appreciative LOL, and not as a contemptuous LOL. You have failed to make me LOL appreciatively, Tamberlint.
You have set at naught that part of a person, that part of YOU, Tamberlint, that is most precious to God. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the part of each person where God longs to dwell and commune, is that person’s soul. You are quite mistaken: no one here is idolizing ugliness, or disease, or deformity. In fact, these defects in a body do not matter at all. It is the soul that matters to God.
Roe v Wade is about sex without consequences.
OK, as a populist ex-libertarian who still has libertarian sympathies, I can agree with the author on many of his points. But it’s WAY too long covering WAY too many different topics in a loosely connected way. It’s rather the opposite of one of Ron Unz’s posts, which despite being long are tightly focused, making them well worth the time of reading them. Another issue is the author’s redefinition of common terms, like using “nationalist” to mean “centralist.” Yes, liberals do that sort of thing all the time (such as redefining “racism” to mean “anything white people do”) but that doesn’t make it a good idea.
Do YOU care what happens to the IDF’s victims across the ocean in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or do you just want to exercise control over the Israelis? I think you DO care about those victims, their remoteness notwithstanding, because the victims are people. Extrapolate, and see if this helps you imagine what it might be like to walk in a “pro-lifer’s” shoes.
I mean abortion is a moral issue, rather it is about moral issue. There are good abortions, and bad abortions, abortions done well and abortions obscene beyond reason — though perhaps it is better to use the word termination. All abortions of the will of God are evil.
Regarding your opinion of the idle scolds obturating sensible policy: agree.
“You have the party line, hook and sinker too.”
Dumb
Oh, bullshit. That’s like saying if a Mafia hit man rubs out a rival it’s nobody else’s business.
First of all, as Mr. Penfield points out, the Constitution of the United States says nothing whatsoever about abortion, the idea that it is somehow a “constitutional right” is facially absurd. Regulation of medical procedures falls within the police powers of the States, under the Tenth Amendment.
Second, as a scientific matter, an abortion is killing a living human being. It’s not even up for debate. The fetus has it’s own unique DNA comprised of 46 chromosomes, 23 from the mother and 23 from the father. It’s “The Science.”
From a perspective of Darwinian evolutionary biology, the White Race cannot survive without reproduction. If I want the White Race to survive and prosper it is absolutely my business whether White females mate with White males and reproduce or not.
What we have right now is White females aborting healthy White offspring, and then fucking Negro bucks and birthing mulatto offspring. It’s absolutely outrageous and unacceptable.
That was an appreciative LOL I gave you, Ariadna, just to be clear. Now no one can be sure what Tween Spirit’s LOLs mean LOL
🙂
Your question is one of spaghetti-flinging. Trying to associate unrelated issues. It doesn’t work.
But, to answer you anyway, no, I don’t particularly care what happens to strangers in other lands. That is for those countries to sort out.
But, I DO CARE that the USA sends millions of our young adults (actual living beings) to die or be maimed in fvcking wars that WE gin-up. Where is the outrage of the holier-than-thou types regarding those atrocities?
Well, bullshit right back at ya. Another false equivalency- it fails.
There is no assurance that a pregnancy will result in a live birth. In fact, approx ONE THIRD of pregnancies terminate on their own….i.e. nature’s abortion. More than 90% of abortions are performed in under 13 weeks…..most under 10 weeks. So, it’s like I said, all the pearl clutching is simply fake outrage for purposes of trying to control.
More silliness and weak-mindedness. The Constitution did not speak about MOST issues SCOTUS rules on in the modern era. The internet? Telecommunications in general? Intricate aspects of commerce? Of copyright laws and intellectual property? Of vaccines and pharma drugs? LOL, cripes, I could go on all day listing all the issues SCOTUS deals with that weren’t even a germ in the minds of the framers of the Constitution.
You are easily played by fake media and manipulative politicians. Worry about that.
I am delighted that toy chose o ha children and that your son no doubt remains a valuable delight. Jealous, single with no children and very jealous Bully for you.
However, nosense. I am unclear how the procedure you state does anything akin to murdering a child.
There are natural deaths, absolutely. That is a completely different matter. And I am unclear how God fits into my position. I don’t mention od. Don’t even huint its a atter of concern. The child, is a human being in development. And absolutely, I understand your taking your doctors advice. Though I stand where I came. Taking th life of a human being at any stage of development is not something the US should be engaged period.
If in fact, those children would have passed anyway, then, it seems that the only way to know that is by occurrence. Your introduction of the argument has no impact on the position. I don’t make any contends regarding how a parent/s choose to bring their child into the world. My position is that murdering said child is not something that the US should be engaged in, And a natural death, is certainly not murder. Nor do I make any such claims that it is.
Your other suggestion seems to be that my position would have barred you having children, but does not explain how.
Again, congratulations on having children by said means. No issues with me.
As an examination of my TUR comment history will reveal, to any interested party, that the opposition to my not infrequent posts (three of them, so far, on this thread *) in which I’ve made—with varying degrees of outrage — references to the plight of the victims of the modern nation of Israel…this opposition to those comments is mainly from persons for whom “holier-than-thou” is not an apt description; in fact they would object to being identified with any term having such organized-religious vibes.
I do however, share your disgust with horrible, bloodthirsty, venial, war-mongering politicians who pander to pro-life people, and some of the sui-distant pro-life people who wickedly (and in a holier-than-thou fashion while they’re doing it, too) cheer on those politicians, with their I STAND WITH ISRAEL virtue-signaling gear.
My blood is like enough to boil at the thought of all the US blood and treasure squandered, all the phantom pains from missing limbs, and traumatic brain injuries, all the ***$***-ing MORAL INJURY suffered by those who’ve survived a tour or five in the Mid East, until maybe they, well… you know until they couldn’t stand the psychic pain anymore, and ended it all because someone who might have been able to help them carry their burden wasn’t able to reach out in time.
You BET I’m outraged, The_Real_World. I don’t think you really have any idea how outraged.
And so, that’s why my positive response to this article was so enthusiastic. Reading it was like a balm to a soul that is vexed many times a day by the situations I’ve described.
* Tween Spirit affixed a LOL to one or two of those, but on this thread, that’s hardly a feature that would make the comments I’m referring to stand out from the others.
Tis you that really doesn’t get it. Let me ask you: when is conception, specifically?
The answer to that will indicate whether there is any other conversation worth having.
Aw, bless-it. That should’ve been “soi-disant” not “sui-distant.”
Ohhh allow me . . . Laugh
I am okay with IreneAthena losing the vote. Thank you, madam, for being the object lesson I needed.
I agree with many comments you make on these threads but, you are way-off, on several levels, with this one. It’s fairly shocking considering how even-handed many of your other statements have been.
Normally, I’d be willing to describe and discuss but, my long time experience has been that when people are so thoroughly entrenched and under-informed about this topic…there is simply no reaching them. No presented facts or solid reasoning will be recognized and acknowledged. Only their deep dogma matters. So….c’est la vie, I guess.
Yes, I knew you had absolutely nothing.
But, that doesn’t stop you from prattling gibberish and clogging-up the thread. Next…
Hear! Hear!
Thanks….and sex-workers demonstrate lower rates of STDs than their casual or married counterparts.
…..because their lives and livelihoods depend on barriers, screening, early treatment and prophylaxis.
I am afraid you misunderstand.
I have a clear and distinct answer. But your comment was not about exploring or discussing when human life begins.
It was a test of my worthiness as to be detrmined by you. And that I reject without reservation.
Sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy from someone who has no counter argument.
“Cest la vie” is an odd choice of words from some who advocates murder of the helpless and innocent.
I’m pleased with the optics.
Every comment that I have read by you at https://www.unz.com has been inane. You are like the booze-guzzling, skirt-chasing “big man on campus” who interrupts a lecture by a distinguished professor with silly questions and even irrelevant comments.
A compassionate senior needs to buttonhole you in a hallway and gently inform you that you are out of your depth here.
Your wounded ego perhaps demands that you make a snarky reply. If that will salve your wounded psyche, by all means indulge.
Not of your worthiness, goofy. It was to determine whether you had factual info on something so basic — since no one can ever answer that question. They draw a blank 100% of the time.
Well, truth be known, it was a little bit of a trick question. Because I know that you don’t the answer. Given that NO ONE does.
Iow, you let yourself get played with that “conception” trope.
It’s just not worth the time, Rob.
You have made your unhinged zealotry on this topic entirely clear.
Suffice it to say that you’ve decided to have a very limited and curated perspective on a topic that has no direct impact on you. Which is bizarre.
(Unless, it did indirectly have impact on you and that’s what’s bothering you.)
Comment #103 was meant in reply to this comment but, did not nest that way.
First respone and am laughing.
“Iow, you let yourself get played with that “conception” trope.”
So no argument to a nonexistent argument means, that the person doesn’t know or does not have an answer.
And by your comments, “no one does”/ Legions of physicians, prenatal research, care including surgeries . . and none of them have a clue when conception starts. So right nor i walk into an invetro clinic and none of them could define conception or pinpoint when it starts.
The issue when conception begins human existence is neither new nor left in some manner of misunderstood limbo.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
Certainly I have a view —hate to break te news to you — but when human life starts is not a new issue.
No the trap is whether one wants to have their worthiness assessed by you on the subject.
And this is
“Let me ask you: when is conception, specifically?” is nit an argument. It is an inquisitive.
cleaning up the previous comment
And this
“Let me ask you: when is conception, specifically?”
is not an argument. It is an inquisitive. and I am laughing.
So in your view, no argument to a nonexistent argument means, that the person doesn’t know or does not have an answer.
Further your comments, “no one does”/ suggests that legions of physicians, prenatal researchers, inutero surgeries, . . IFV clinics and none of them have a clue when conception starts.
So I walk into an IFV clinic and none of them could define conception or pinpoint when human life starts. The issue when conception begins human existence is neither new nor left in some manner of misunderstood limbo.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
Certainly I have a view — hate to break the news to you — but when human life starts is not a new issue.
Second,
“Iow, you let yourself get played with that “conception” trope.”
No the trap is whether one wants to have their worthiness assessed by you on the subject. Silence is oft just silence. And there I remain, low IQ and unworthiness, embraced all the same.
If my comment were “unhinged zealotry”, any intelligent person could surely refute something, anything, that I said.
But you can’t.
You obviously thought that replying twice without doing so was “worth your time”.
You are simply unwilling to discard a position that you are holding which has been refuted with correctly applied logic and science, many times obviously.
Here’s a tip, simply denying something doesn’t refute it.
Off you go, replying to other comments that aren’t “worth your time”.
And the answer is still, NO, that you don’t know when conception occurs.
Because even a pregnant woman’s Doctor can’t tell her when that happened.
They guess.
So, a realistic and sensible person would devise a new demarcation point as to when a fetus become untouchable regarding an abortion, in their opinion.
Frankly, the majority of this moot anyway.
The Plan B pill prevents a pregnancy from occurring, so…
Everyday, all over America, families or individuals make the decision to, quite literally, kill someone. To let them die. They either don’t utilize life-supporting measures or they willfully have them removed.
If you think those are clear, obvious, entirely objective decisions, you would be incorrect. I know that’s what some people believe – those who have never been that position but, no. It’s a judgment call based on imperfect science, flawed Doctors, even more flawed basic human family members, etc. Often, that ill person could have healed and lived on (maybe not very well but, that’s a matter of preference and another roll of the dice). That whole process is extremely dodgy and the average person has no idea what they’re in for when ultimately faced with making that decision.
So, why aren’t people, like yourself, upset about that? That many actual living peoples’ lives get taken by uninformed or unaware or poor decision makers or the financially motivated? It happens daily.
Don’t get me started on what happens in legit US hospitals when they have a young adult, with prime juicy organs, that they declare to be “brain dead”. Especially, if that person previously volunteered their organs and is on a state donor list. They are as good as gone because those organs are so valuable.
Also, the US Govt sends large numbers of military personnel into the meat grinder of ginned-up wars to be killed, maimed or psychologically damaged. Huge numbers of young lives get destroyed that way. Where is the outrage, Rob? Where are the street protests, the lobbying of Congress members, etc. etc.?
The only conclusion to draw is that the abortion zealots are okay with the killing of living humans that occurs in the above paragraphs. Yet, they rage about a potential life (approx one third of all pregnancies self-terminate so, it is only a potential).
So, it is the inconsistency that is most bothersome. People are either hypocrites or they aren’t. And nobody with more than two marbles in their head trusts a hypocrite or gives them the time of day.
You’re making a lot of assumptions that you have no rational right to make.
You’re also conflating things that aren’t close to equal.
As a result you’ve created a narrative in your head, a straw man, that is illogical, irrational and can’t withstand scrutiny.
But as long as it’s not worth your time to consider the counter arguments that defeat it, you’ll never have to recognize how thoroughly logic and science defeats it.
Pulling the plug on a terminally ill person according to their wishes is not the same as snuffing out a young helpless and innocent life full of potential who has not declared their wishes.
Informed adults choosing to kill each other is also not even close to the same thing as abortion.
A death caused by illness or accident is not a choice. Abortion is a choice.
The fact that all unnecessary death does outrage me is irrelevant, as are your feelings, to the fact that abortion violates the inalienable right to life of the fetus.
Let me guess, time for you to bring out your other straw man. I must be an “unhinged zealot”. So you don’t have to consider, “waste your time” on this counter argument either.
I stated facts not assumptions. The reality that those facts make you uncomfortable is irrelevant.
You’re right, they aren’t. The three life-killing situations I mentioned are vastly more relevant than terminating a pregnancy that has one third chance of not surviving anyhow. Plus, it’s not your or my business how strangers handle their pregnancies.
Oh but, it very much can be and often is. You, like most, aren’t aware of the extreme NUANCE of those situations. Like I already said – they most often are not utterly clear, obvious or even understood accurately. So, everyday, actual living people are being killed because of that. It’s insane how casually people think about and handle those serious medical situations. Some spend vastly more time following sportsball than learning about the responsibility they willingly signed onto when agreeing to be a Healthcare POA for someone else. Seen it myself and have heard the stories about it from other people.
No further need for that as I already identified it and you’ve amply evidenced it. This dialogue proceeded just like I knew it would. Anyone who is unhinged and dogmatic about this topic is decidedly not rational or reasonable about it and lacks large amounts of real and important information.
Oyy veh. Nice try. The time that a woman is conceived as the exact date has nothing to do with whether said conception occurred.
The issue is to condition not the date. You are merely playing a word to avoid your previous folly. Unless a camera is present in the womb, the exact date is of course unknown. That is not the issue. The issue is to process.
And why I remain silent on the question. You have managed to argue with yourself. And Contrary to your gaming, I do have a moment when the a human child is conceived. You are not really interested in the question, but merely a game of wprd gaming as you have admitted — trick question.
No one is talking about what day, what time of day —- and nothing in my comment suggests that is an issue. What a day a human is conceived . . . is actually irrelevant to the state of human conception. Others may very well applaud your hoola hoop, but I don’t think you have a clue about what it says about you.
Oy veh.
Laugh.
“And the answer is still, NO, that you don’t know when conception occurs.”
No, the answer remains, whether or not I would subject myself to some personalized standard of worthiness created by you.
You will of course turn your folly into some manner of victory — no doubt also defined by you.
Goodness greif oy veh . . . Laugh.
It looks like your self fulfilling prophecy has come true again.
I’m pleased with the optics.
You’ve proven every assertion I initially made and more of the same since.
Arrogant ignoramuses are the scourge of the earth.
Those are the prevailing optics.
(I knew you’d fold. But, that’s smarter than digging your hole even deeper.) Adios…
The_Real_World states, correctly, “… the US Govt sends large numbers of military personnel into the meat grinder of ginned-up wars to be killed, maimed or psychologically damaged.”
The_Real_World asks, “Where is the outrage, [REDACTED]? Where are the street protests, the lobbying of Congress members, etc. etc.?”
IreneAthena replies, “That’s a question that got me thinking. There have been lots of street protests against the horrors of war, particularly after the IDF’s orders-of-magnitude out-of-response to 10/7/23. Still, those protests were in support of the people in Gaza being killed, not protesting loss of American life in the Middle East. A lot of the pro-Palestinian protests that occurred on campus were shut down, because the AIPAC- controlled government said the school’s funding would stop if it didn’t. Code Pink does very visible, dramatic anti-war protests, and again government steps in to stop those before they get much attention. Ray McGovern’s entirely peaceful protest of Hilary Clinton during one of her pro-war orations involved standing up and turning his back to her— he was removed by government goons and beaten up (as a somewhat elderly gentleman at that.) It hasn’t changed since anti-war protesters took government-issue bullets at Kent State.
No, you haven’t seen huge public street marches (like the annual Right to Life marches in DC) unless the war-mongers have reasons to give their support to those protests— as this article has illustrated they do. There’s government-provided security at every pro-life March I’ve been to. There’s anti-war marches get government-provided opposition.”
Part Two of my reply to The Real World’s inquiry as to why there aren’t street protests against sending US guys (and gals) to die in stupid wars in countries where the U.S. has no security interests. (1) American soldiers die in wars in countries where US corporations have oil interests; that’s why the corporatocracy provides opposition to such protests rather than security and support (see my previous comment.)
(2) American soldiers die in wars in countries where Israel has security interests; that’s the reason the Zionist-occupied US government provides opposition, rather than support, to protests against those wars
(3) Once Obama got elected, pro-abortion and anti-war activists amongst Democrats essentially went into hibernation, to emerge later, transmogrified into creatures wearing “I’m with HER” merch in support of War-Mongress Hilary Clinton’s presidential run. Do you know anyone like that, The_Real_World?
(4) Many people who go to protests to defend unborn babies 👶 HAVE been interested in participating in protests to defend the lives of American youth being sent to the meat- and mind- grinder of stupid foreign wars. Examples of this type of “anti-stupid-Mid-East war” cum “pro-preborn-baby” individual are many of Ron Paul’s supporters during his presidential runs. Ron Paul, you may remember, was and is both “pro-preborn-baby” and “anti-most-modern-American wars.” The supporters of Ron Paul included both “pro-preborn-babies” types as well as “don’t-give-a-damn-about-other-people’s-Products-of-Conception*” folks like yourself. That’s one of the reasons why the movement to elect him was called “The rEVOLution” instead of a pro-life movement, and also to avoid confusion with the soi-disant pro-life neocons most of the other Republicans in the primaries were.
(5) Maybe Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns should’ve been called “The anti-war” movement. That would’ve accurately described all his supporters, and would’ve been in sharp and pointed opposition to all his neocon Republican primary opponents. Maybe naming RP’s campaigns “the antiwar movement” would’ve attracted the support of people who were anti-war but who didn’t understood what “rEVOLution” meant, or for whom “LOVE” —embedded, reversed and highlighted in the campaign’s name— reinforced the off-putting impression that Ron Paul supporters were a bunch of hippy-dippy pot-heads.
(6) The_Real_World, would you participate in an anti-war street protest if you knew some of the people marching with you were also pro-preborn-baby, as long as they left their posters with gory images of aborted Products of Conception (*1) at home? I’d gladly march in an anti-war protest with you! Do you know anyone who is organizing a march like that? * ju-jitsu maneuver* If you don’t know anyone who is organizing a street protest like that, WHY DON’T YOU KNOW ANYONE ORGANIZING A MARCH LIKE THAT???
Footnote *1 “Products of Conceptions” See my next comment.
While it is necessary to refute propaganda and lies, when the source has been clearly demonstrated to be bigoted, and are unwilling to consider counter arguments, there won’t be any admissions of error even when they have been presented with no rational alternative.
You just have to be “pleased with the optics” of the dialogue knowing that the truth has been shared and rational people will recognize and accept it.
The key being “ truth is discerned, demonstrated and shared with the irrefutable evidence of correctly applied logic and science”.
If more than this is required, and I believe it is, we will need to recognize that we need to criminalize lying.
True. Unless The Real World finds something to which she can reply with snark or ad hominem, she is unlikely to reply at all. I wasn’t really expecting her to respond, but it may be helpful for on-lookers to see her arguments successfully refuted, as you and I and others have done here.
Besides, doesn’t it feel great to have the last word
in an argument?
Whenever I reply, I do so with the hope it will inspire rational discourse, even debate.
Peace of mind comes with the resolution of conflict and the only thing we all share in peace, is the truth, reality.
Because to me, the truth, reality, is everything. It is the engine of evolution. If you can correct my understanding by refuting my statement, I will gladly accept it and never state the error again. This way, everyone wins.
If you or anyone speaks, “the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth” you can have the last word every time.
Why do you write the most convoluted, conflating, off-point comments? Is it an ADD thing? (H Clinton, R Paul, Palestinians, Gaza, ETC. have ZERO to do with what was being discussed here – good grief!) I can’t imagine that most UR readers don’t shake their heads when seeing your much belabored and wandering posts. You should give that approach a serious rethink.
To wrench this back on-topic, the convo wasn’t about war, it was about the giant hypocrisy too many have regarding abortion and the actual deaths of living adults in shitty wars for profit and conquest PLUS the two other atrocities I mentioned.
Rob, unsurprisingly, was out of his depth but, at least recognized that he’s a hypocrite and should back out. That Elite Comm goofball, who was clinging to the “life begins at conception” line in the sand without understanding something as basic as: no one knows when conception occurs! So, he’s a verifiable loon. And then, Irene chimes in throwing mostly unrelated spaghetti everywhere while astonishingly believing that somehow adds value to the discussion.
However, the good news is: the three of you have provided perfect examples of why random people need to be kept out of the private lives of others. They should straighten-out their own lives and get better educated on topics they have strident opinions about but, minimal actual knowledge.
But, I’ll answer this question as evidence that some of us are sane.
Of course! Wherever I find common ground with someone, I’m happy to work with them on that cause (assuming they’re not unhinged in general; that would be a no-go). We don’t have to be in complete agreement on everything – that would be a childish expectation.
You people need to manage the issues in your own lives. That should be your priority plus you’re wasting time on this one. *** Plan B pills can be bought on Amazon and Walmart, mifepristone is readily available and medical abortions account for over 60% of terminations in the USA now. Add that virtually all of the majority-conservative states that have brought abortion-related referendums to voters in recent years have passed in favor of choice. So, it’s over, it’s done. The people have spoken and only the crazy control freaks remain…wasting everyone’s time and allowing untold numbers of living adults to die needless deaths in various and unfortunate ways while they pontificate their uninformed and extremist opinions.***
“However, the good news is: the three of you have provided perfect examples of why random people need to be kept out of the private lives of others.”
If parents are not interested in protecting their children, then it becomes a public matter. Today there is no reason any women ever become pregnant, if she doesn’t want to. And the US sy=tates should not be in the business of murdering them for anyone’s convenience.
And while rape is not a woman’s choice, in the rare event she should become pregnant, that child should be protected regardless.
And when I say child, I mean from the point of conception. The reason that that there might be fewer protester about wars is because, in matters f war, people are making choices. Tha child in the womb is wholly innocent and one of e foundational principles of the US is the ight to exist. The formula for murdering children isn’t new, but as mass ethic — 1950’s. In my view no period of was more devastating to the US because the method of coming to truth was flipped on its proverbial head. Like the founders mistake of defining people as proerty — actual property, The fifties and 50’s generations attacked the meaning of human, family and gender 00 and physical reality. With the aide of eastern mystic pholospy and all of its nilism —
There is no proof that same relational conduct has a static biologocal marker – but they demanded or be identified as resukting from biology
A fertilized is not a one cell organism pp but they called it that
There is no evidence tha human beings exist is some gender continuum, but tat didn’t stop the pres from treating Dr. Kinsey’s nonsense af truth.
No women were not mere commodities set ti abuse worse han slaves or as bad as, but that didn’t stop legions of liberals from teating it as fact
No men and women are not the same, never will be, cannot do what the other can do as a general standard.
There is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo, but when the have results from falsehood — or worse that in all things there are many truths. No protecting a conceved child in the womb is the same as protecting men and women capable making choices about war.
No. The US did not invade vietnam.
No the union of male issue and egg are not the same as skin tissue.
(1) re: your paragraph 4: I could have responded, to your introduction here, of the seemingly off-topic subject of premature organ donations, with the same type of invective you delivered to me in the first paragraph of your #122 (“Is it an ADD thing? …H Clinton, R Paul, Palestinians, Gaza, ETC. have ZERO to do with what was being discussed here – good grief!”)
I did not respond to you in that fashion, because I generally don’t assume the communication skills of another person are defective before I’ve re-read the unclear phrase or passage, in context to see the connection I might’ve missed. Generally, the connection becomes crystal clear once that small, courteous effort has been made. If I still don’t understand the relevance, a polite request for clarification, and a polite, non-defensive response, will usually suffice to clear up points of confusion.
I did, in fact, upon second reading, note that premature organ donation—the better term would be “premature organ appropriation,” yes?— was yet another item in a growing laundry list of issues that T_R_W assumes people who defend the life of the pre-born don’t care about. In point of fact, I had a conversation about that very issue when I was discussing, with three other pro-life folks, what I wanted included in my living will. If you want to organize an anti-war-of-aggression march, or an anti-premature-organ-appropriation march, name the date and place, The_Real_World. If the time and time-zone suits, count my friends and me in!!!
(2) The following paragraphs will hopefully clarify the relevance to your question, “Where is the outrage?” of my allusions to HRC, Ron Paul, and Gaza, in my comment here:
https://www.unz.com/article/remembering-roe-and-its-ongoing-political-factions/#comment-6968841
Turning your demand “Where is the outrage?” back on YOU, I’d ask, “Why don’t YOU and your gung-ho-for-abortion-rights pals kick up some big dust about: premature organ appropriation; moral injury, physical injury and death suffered by young Americans sent to fight in immoral wars in land where the U.S. has no security interest?”
Part of that answer is that the pro-war government suppresses anti-war protests no matter who organizes them, but that same government provides security for pro-life marches, because these marches help elect pro-war candidates who make empty pro-life promises. However, another significant factor is this:
After the election of Barack Obama, the leftist anti-war/pro-abortion crowd either:
(a) lost their anti-war fervor and adopted a more consistent and robust death ethic, supporting candidates like the pro-death, pro-abortion, war-mongering harpie Hilary Clinton and the pro-abortion, pro-funding-and-exacerbating-Ukraine-in-the-U.S’-proxy-war-with-Russia, pro-genocide-of-Gazan-Palestinians, pro-mandates-for-CV-ineffective-and-unsafe-clot-shot Joe Biden Jr…OR
(b) gave somewhat qualified but still enthusiastic support to the presidential candidate Ron Paul, who has a consistent life-ethic, being both “anti-war-of-aggression” and “pro-pre-born baby.”
If more clarification is needed, I will try to offer more assistance, but only if you ask nicely, dear.
To anyone reading this who has (very recently) taken a plan B pill, and now, realizing the enormity of what she has done, regrets her decision: there is a small window within which abortifacients which prevent implantation (aka plan B) can be counteracted, so that the baby can implant and develop normally to full term.
The doctor who prescribed the abortifacient probably wouldn’t be the first place I’d look for this pregnancy-preserving medication. The mother will want somebody who will appreciate and cooperate with her need for fast action, like an organization helping women with unplanned pregnancies AND their babies.
Irene = another crazed zealot.
What strangers do regarding pregnancy prevention methods or with their pregnancies is none of your business. Manage the deficiencies in your own life.
But, no, you’d rather front more faulty information and stick your nose into other peoples personal matters. No Doctor is needed to obtain Plan B methods – which prevent pregnancy.
What are you…a sperm worshipper? Is that the issue here? A twisted obsession with sperm? A male author on UR came to that conclusion and wrote an article about it here around one year ago. You should read it. Of course, male commenters had meltdowns and wet their pants about it b/c it was so close to reality and they hate being held to account.
You want to do something actually constructive? (Dumb question, I know, b/c your zealotry makes it obvious that you don’t) Then spend your energy announcing, over and over, here and elsewhere, that unintended pregnancies should be prevented and that males have 100% ability to prevent them. I’ll borrow a quote that sums it up, “All unintended pregnancies are a result of irresponsible ejaculation”.
Start fronting that reality on here. Be better.
I see what you did here:
Plan B pills can be bought on Amazon and Walmart, mifepristone is readily available and medical abortions account for over 60% of terminations in the USA now — The Real World
YOU are the one who is incorrectly lumping birth control in with abortifacients here, declaring that because plan B pills and mifepristone are readily available, the fight against abortion is over.
Levonorgestrel — THAT’S the drug you were referring to when you introduced Plan B to the discussion— won’t work if a woman is already pregnant. It prevents ovulation. It acts BEFORE conception (union of sperm and egg) takes place, so it is early birth-control, NOT an abortifacient. You’ve already told everybody on this forum that you don’t know when conception takes place, and that’s probably why you don’t recognize the difference.
Mifepristone (aka RU-486) is an entirely different ball of wax. It IS an abortifacient, it does require a prescription, and, as an abortifacient, it is illegal in some states.
I need to strike the phrase “plan B” from the comment above, and replace it with “RU-486.” Everything else I said in the comment holds.
There is an emergency birth control med, levonorgestrel, which prevents ovulation, an event that occurs before conception, so that method is not an abortifacient. It is an over-the-counter drug.
RU-486, on the other hand, is an abortifacient that requires a prescription in the states where it is even legal. It is part of a two stage process which prevents implantation of the newly conceived embryo in the mother’s womb. There is a small window in which RU-486 can be counteracted for a woman who is regretting her decision to abort. If this is you, act quickly and contact a place which serves mothers who are unexpectedly pregnant—AND their babies.
Any chance you’re going to reply to the question I asked you here, highlighted in bold type , The_Real_World?
https://www.unz.com/article/remembering-roe-and-its-ongoing-political-factions/#comment-6972254
Perhaps you are allergic to undergoing the same soul-searching you are demanding of others.
Yes, I KNOW that Plan B and mifepristone are different medicines and do different things. Any reader halfway up to speed on this topic knows that too. So, your continued conflating fails.
LOL! Oh cripes, don’t tell me you’re another one who thinks she knows when conception occurs. You don’t so, don’t be deluded – that’s a choice and a bad one. You embarrass yourself.
You aren’t American and don’t live in the USA, correct? The VOTERS here have spoken and will continue to and they’ve made the trajectory obvious. At the state level they have voted for choice – with restrictions. That includes predominantly conservative states.
So, it is sperm worship, isn’t it? That’s your obsession. So, why aren’t you lecturing readers that males should keep that liquid to themselves until they intend to make babies? Why aren’t you speaking-up about PREVENTION?
There are all kinds of people in the world. Some, angrily gushing out calumny and insults wherever they go, not giving a damn about the slaughter of Palestinians (or babies anywhere, at any stage of development.) Not everyone is like that, however, and for this I am grateful.☺️
Not that you need my support but,
Just so you know, I am sure I understand what you mean by conception and when that takes and it is not what time of day.
I am not the least bit concerned about your cognitive ability.
Assessments of our low IQ and unworthiness (oh ! how profound the unworthiness!) are neither here nor there, because apparently, a significant number of significantly qualified “nobodies” know when conception begins!
From the survey results reported in the article you shared by Steven Andrew Jacobs of the Northwestern Prizker School of Law and the University of Chicago – Department of Human Development:
“A sample of 5,502 academic biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’…Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).”
Absolutely no arguments from me.
Heard you on Tim Kelly’s Our Interesting Times and popped over to read this. Enjoyed it and loved that you seemed to be focused on the “bigger picture” which, unfortunately, a lot of people have a hard time seeing. You listed many historical bullet points of the progression and like dominoes falling bring us to present.
Do you have some theory of the forces that pushed this change? It seemed to infect the entire “western” world and from my limited historical education I sense that 1850-1915 was the most important period of really radical change not only intellectually but philosophically. From Darwinism/Evolution, to scientific exploitation of the social “sciences”, to massive consolidation of finances, and of course the radical change that industrialization had on daily life. There seemed to be (to quote E Michael Jones) a “Revolutionary Spirit” in the air that fights against Logos or Reason which took hold in our collective minds leading us to where we are now.