Was listening to the radio and the propagandist said something like, “Ohio voters enshrined the right to abortion in the state’s Constitution…” They never do hear themselves, do they. Enshrined. Put into a shrine. A shrine, of course, being is a place of worship.
In a world where Truth still mattered, the pro-life position would carry the day. Life does indeed begin at conception. But we have long ago turned our backs on the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Abortion destroys human life, but most people apparently are not only OK with it, but celebrate it, since it eliminates an inconvenience.
Our nation celebrates sodomy, abortion, and is well on the way to legalizing sex with children. This won't end well.
- Abortion used to be an election issue but no longer because it harms Republican chances of winning votes.
- Republicans can only win by appearing more moderate and like leftists, but this does not amount to actually winning.
It would seem to me that Republicans slowly give ground on liberal issues over time. (Example, "Lady MAGA" At least our trannies are based!)
Which means they end up losing more of the culture war while still becoming more irrelevent.
As for abortion being a ritual, if you could cast a black magic spell on your enemy nation so that more and more women would shun their offspring this is what it would look like. Growing up I saw women as being proud to be mothers and fierce protectors of children. There are still women like that, thankfully, but now you also see a lot of women "shouting their abortions" and if they do have kids, they shamelessly take them to dragqueen story hour. It is horrifying to watch.
License masquerading in the garments of liberty is the forerunner of abject bondage.
Liberty and license are different. True liberty, the fruit of self-control, goes hand in hand with self-conquest; it is associated with self respect. False liberty, license, the ugly assumption of self-assertion, is the sordid consort of self admiration.
I wish people would stop believing we live in a “democracy.” In my town, someone decided we needed to go “Net Zero”, which doesn’t refer to the weather for once, but traffic fatalities. So now, every quiet, empty residential street is full of speed bumps and curb bumpers and those portable radar sped signs. And not one elected official campaigned on this or passed a law/ordinance or whatever. You can vote, vote, vote and the people who make the decisions, the city administration, remains untouched. This is truly Sovietism.
If the universe came into being by accident, by blind chance, and if human beings evolved by an impersonal and random process of variation and natural selection, then there is nothing morally wrong with abortion.
In the end, if you want power, you have to get elected. To get elected you need to take positions popular with enough of the electorate to acquire the votes necessary to get 50%+1. The GOP doesn't do this and therefore loses. Why should it matter if women can get an abortion if they want one *if opposing it means you lose your political power*. Anti-abortion activists are to the GOP what the 'black woman voter' is to the DNC: A special interest voting bloc.
The difference is that paying lip service to the 'black women voter' doesn't cost the DNC elections while kow-towing to anti-abortion activists do.
There is no moral high ground.
There's just power and the will to acquire and use it.
Morals give power form, but they are no replacement for it.
You're a part of the dissident movement that believes that there is another path to power outside 'normal' politics and earning that power through open dialog with the people. But your approach has accomplished *nothing* in more than 70 years.
The idea that presenting your positions in public to be judged by the electorate is 'groveling' points to just what sort of 'political process' you have in mind. And it's not going to work.
Women have abortions for all kinds of reasons, most of them mundane and domestic in nature. Very few women have abortions as a form of retro-active birth control.
The entire anti-abortion movement is predicated on the idea that women shouldn't have sex with anyone they don't want to have babies with. But men have sex with women they don't want to have babies with all the time.
What anti-abortion advocates are unwilling to accept is that the radical proposition that you can take something away from the electorate and will be punished for doing so. You'd think the original Prohibition would have been a lesson in the limits of that kind of approach.
The main reason you're advocating against 'democracy' and for some other 'path to power' is because you know that the electorate, given a choice, has rejected your policies.
And, rather than accept that judgement and figure out how to succeed, you figure you just reject the process altogether.
Which is another reason why 'right wing' politics is consistently rejected by the populace: It cannot be trusted.
You do not understand tolerance. You see, you think that because you listen and wish to refute others opinions and use logic, morality and ethics to support your viewpoint, others are going to operate as you do.
Quite honestly, you are a moron.
Herbert Marcuse: The Philosopher Behind the Ideology of Antifa :
“Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression."
He argues, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and tolerance of movements from the Left... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theatre audience when somebody cries `fire.' It is a situation in which total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment... by a rash speech of one of the leaders... if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future [Fascist and Nazi] leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War."
[ PJ Note :
"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to." --
Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)
"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." --
Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960) ]
He [Marcuse] added in his 1968 Postscript to this essay, "I suggested in `Repressive Tolerance' the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom... and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressors. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character... Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled."
( ....chilling document written by the UN magnate Maurice Strong, an agent of Edmund de Rothschild, )
“Programs for the overaged and the physically unfit would be vastly reduced. The social expense of people who think they should live forever would be eliminated. Overaged persons would tend to understand that their time has come and welcome the opportunity to help solve the population crisis.”
In a world where Truth still mattered, the pro-life position would carry the day. Life does indeed begin at conception. But we have long ago turned our backs on the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Abortion destroys human life, but most people apparently are not only OK with it, but celebrate it, since it eliminates an inconvenience.
Our nation celebrates sodomy, abortion, and is well on the way to legalizing sex with children. This won't end well.
- Abortion used to be an election issue but no longer because it harms Republican chances of winning votes.
- Republicans can only win by appearing more moderate and like leftists, but this does not amount to actually winning.
It would seem to me that Republicans slowly give ground on liberal issues over time. (Example, "Lady MAGA" At least our trannies are based!)
Which means they end up losing more of the culture war while still becoming more irrelevent.
As for abortion being a ritual, if you could cast a black magic spell on your enemy nation so that more and more women would shun their offspring this is what it would look like. Growing up I saw women as being proud to be mothers and fierce protectors of children. There are still women like that, thankfully, but now you also see a lot of women "shouting their abortions" and if they do have kids, they shamelessly take them to dragqueen story hour. It is horrifying to watch.
The principle "Republicans should act more like Democrats" may be an election winner but why not just become Democrats?
These Satanic women who celebrate the murder of yet-unborn humans are no different than the Hamas killers. They obey the same God.
License masquerading in the garments of liberty is the forerunner of abject bondage.
Liberty and license are different. True liberty, the fruit of self-control, goes hand in hand with self-conquest; it is associated with self respect. False liberty, license, the ugly assumption of self-assertion, is the sordid consort of self admiration.
I wish people would stop believing we live in a “democracy.” In my town, someone decided we needed to go “Net Zero”, which doesn’t refer to the weather for once, but traffic fatalities. So now, every quiet, empty residential street is full of speed bumps and curb bumpers and those portable radar sped signs. And not one elected official campaigned on this or passed a law/ordinance or whatever. You can vote, vote, vote and the people who make the decisions, the city administration, remains untouched. This is truly Sovietism.
We aren’t men.
The Taliban are men.
Not kidding.
Of course they don’t want our children. We whine about rights.
The women’s instincts say kill his seed, he is weak.
Not kidding.
If the universe came into being by accident, by blind chance, and if human beings evolved by an impersonal and random process of variation and natural selection, then there is nothing morally wrong with abortion.
In the end, if you want power, you have to get elected. To get elected you need to take positions popular with enough of the electorate to acquire the votes necessary to get 50%+1. The GOP doesn't do this and therefore loses. Why should it matter if women can get an abortion if they want one *if opposing it means you lose your political power*. Anti-abortion activists are to the GOP what the 'black woman voter' is to the DNC: A special interest voting bloc.
The difference is that paying lip service to the 'black women voter' doesn't cost the DNC elections while kow-towing to anti-abortion activists do.
There is no moral high ground.
There's just power and the will to acquire and use it.
Morals give power form, but they are no replacement for it.
Abortion on demand, when reduced to its essentials, is killing people because they are inconvenient. This can never be ethical.
Oh, how I loathe the two midwits Hanania and Lindsay!
You hit another homerun with this essay sir.
It is a cult!
https://frederickrsmith.substack.com/p/sodom-and-gomorra-plus-part-4-abortion
Robert Lewis Dabney was right.
You're a part of the dissident movement that believes that there is another path to power outside 'normal' politics and earning that power through open dialog with the people. But your approach has accomplished *nothing* in more than 70 years.
The idea that presenting your positions in public to be judged by the electorate is 'groveling' points to just what sort of 'political process' you have in mind. And it's not going to work.
Women have abortions for all kinds of reasons, most of them mundane and domestic in nature. Very few women have abortions as a form of retro-active birth control.
The entire anti-abortion movement is predicated on the idea that women shouldn't have sex with anyone they don't want to have babies with. But men have sex with women they don't want to have babies with all the time.
What anti-abortion advocates are unwilling to accept is that the radical proposition that you can take something away from the electorate and will be punished for doing so. You'd think the original Prohibition would have been a lesson in the limits of that kind of approach.
The main reason you're advocating against 'democracy' and for some other 'path to power' is because you know that the electorate, given a choice, has rejected your policies.
And, rather than accept that judgement and figure out how to succeed, you figure you just reject the process altogether.
Which is another reason why 'right wing' politics is consistently rejected by the populace: It cannot be trusted.
You do not understand tolerance. You see, you think that because you listen and wish to refute others opinions and use logic, morality and ethics to support your viewpoint, others are going to operate as you do.
Quite honestly, you are a moron.
Herbert Marcuse: The Philosopher Behind the Ideology of Antifa :
“Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression."
He argues, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and tolerance of movements from the Left... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theatre audience when somebody cries `fire.' It is a situation in which total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment... by a rash speech of one of the leaders... if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future [Fascist and Nazi] leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War."
[ PJ Note :
"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to." --
Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)
"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." --
Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960) ]
He [Marcuse] added in his 1968 Postscript to this essay, "I suggested in `Repressive Tolerance' the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom... and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressors. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character... Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled."
( ....chilling document written by the UN magnate Maurice Strong, an agent of Edmund de Rothschild, )
“Programs for the overaged and the physically unfit would be vastly reduced. The social expense of people who think they should live forever would be eliminated. Overaged persons would tend to understand that their time has come and welcome the opportunity to help solve the population crisis.”
WEF 1992 UNCED .
-
They truly are not like you and I.