England’s Mandatory Suicide & Women

You will have heard about the slow-motion suicide of the English has now made mandatory by their rulers, who evidently have grown tired of living with each other. And, since they are exhausted, they assume by their expertise commoners must be, too. Or, if they are not, they will be made to be.

Women there have ensured they can kill off their offspring, right up until the moment of birth, and, as these things go, likely for some time after that, too. They justify this by saying the lives inside them are not really alive, and are instead part of their, the killer-mothers’, bodies. This is married to the premise that women have a “right” to do whatever they like to their own bodies. That neither of the premises which allow the killing are remotely true does not matter. So the wee throats are slit. Sacrificed to the gods of Utility.

Though I gather the full passage of the law is not complete for some Lordly reason or another, England’s rulers also made it mandatory to start killing off people at the other end of the life. Old and unhappy English, or their representatives, will now to be able to ask quacks to kill them, or their charges, which the quacks will do. The state will pay for it, too. (If you enjoy life, stay away from doctors.) This is the place for the hackneyed Soylent Green joke, because we haven’t any idea what they’ll do with the corpses.

Although the other races crowding into Olde Merrie will be allowed to participate in these jollities, the great majority of the victims will be the English themselves. Their young are now a minority in many places, and because of these new laws, soon in all places. Of course, their replacements, not being as tired of life, when they are the majority will be able to vote themselves anything they want, so it’s not likely these laws will be permanent. They’ll last just long enough to clear most of the English out.

You may, in the excitement over these new laws, have missed a third category. The championing of “hate” laws. Many are arrested daily in England for sending “offensive” social media posts, which you know. Normal English themselves are not allowed to be offended, though, so it is largely only they who are arrested—and sentenced quite harshly. New laws would make “hate” itself illegal, especially “hate” directed toward pet Victims.

Though the set is complicated, all three categories rely in good part on the same feminine root. All were surely inevitable in these forms once women were allowed, by weak or ill-educated men, to participate in politics.

It is a characteristic of the breed—on average: we speak in generalities here—that in any argument women do not enjoy admitting error. Many react in horror at the idea. Like men, they want to get their way. Still, there are times in an argument when the facts prove a position wrong. When the facts are plain and agreed upon, even loudly and rudely, men will admit defeat. But for women, this is when the tears come out, or when the tone of the argument becomes a substitute for the argument itself. This explains the old joke, “It’s not what you said, it’s the way you said it.”

In early feminism we had women saying they were the equal of men and so demanded to be treated no differently than men. The fact is false the desire untrue. Tell a female colleague, “Boy, you’re really packing it on. You become any rounder and we can use you as a basketball”, which I once heard one man say to another (who laughed), and she will (a) likely cry, or (b) contact HR and have you punished for creating a “hostile” environment.

Women do not want fairness or equality, they want their way, and, like men, who also want their way, use the tools available to them to get it.

This is for women in the wild, and not in organized politics. And is natural behavior in a sex that is more or less physically powerless against a stronger one. Once women reach politics they do not replace their natures, because of course none of us can, so instead of tears and tone-shifts we have women pushing rules (in the workplace) and laws (on all of us) which forbid making women feel bad.

Here’s a female MP on the third set of new laws:”I’m delighted the government has accepted my amendment to make hate crimes against LGBT+ and disabled people aggravated offences, and will now table an amendment in the House of Lords to make it happen.”

A “hate” crime is being caught disagreeing with the moral position this lady, and other ladies, have taken. Nothing more. All “hate” crimes are feminine, or effeminate for men who tout them. They ensure persons holding peculiar positions never hear a discouraging word, or, if they do, the discourager is punished in the public square. Men will make laws, say, banning regime criticism public disagreement with religious dogma. But the laws would be backed by logical argument, however flawed. It wouldn’t occur to men to ban “hate”.

It does to women. That’s why England has laws that make it a crime to silently pray where women are doing what they know they be wrong, but demand not to be shamed for. They have even made negative (to them) thought illegal. It is no coincidence they define areas in which certain thought is illegal “safe zones”. There is no increased risk of physical danger, but shame causes pain, and pain is “unsafe”.

I take it as plain that systematic laws supporting women killing their kids would not exist were women not in politics. True, with only men in politics there would be the odd infanticide and abortion, but it wouldn’t be programmatic, routine, and touted openly as good and “healthful” and the like as it is under women. The one exception to men, a return to patriarchal paganism, is scarcely likely, so a new public cult which sacrifices children to obscure gods won’t arise. Anyway, without women in politics there certainly wouldn’t be any laws against shaming women who get abortions.

Now there is a strong unisex (Enlightenment) utilitarian impulse to killing off those considered useless. And both men and women agree that if you’re going to kill, since we live in an Expertocracy, it’s best to have Experts doing the slaughtering. Thus if only men were in politics, these same utilitarian laws on doctor killings would have some chance of being passed. But there would not be the emotional blackmail we now see used to push the laws.

Why kill? Because tears. Because kindness and compassion, women’s special purview, though here put to ill use. Here’s a lady thinking how nice it will be when all are systematically slaughtered. It’s not surprising women pushing doctor deaths use “choice” as a key argument. What women (in these movements) choose to do is morally desirable, by definition. Only now the “right” to do what they like with their “own” bodies will be extended to your body.

We’ve already seen in other countries the Slippery Slope of doctor killings is well greased, so it’s rational to suppose it will be in England, too. Women’s misapplied pity, and many lures of utilitarianism, will broaden the categories of eligibility inexorably. Of course, outside war abortion is the most efficient means of killing, abetted greatly here by disallowing any live critique. The second most efficient way of killing, in a sense, was that first emphasized by Thomas Malthus, which is to prevent conception in the first place. And this Pride (in all its glories) does nicely, also accompanied by those laws which make it illegal to criticize.

There is no solution, save the age old one of waiting out the inexorable grinding down of all things wrought by democracies, with its emphasis on Equality. So suicide for England it is.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank. BUY ME A COFFEE.