“Choice”

Remember, all ye uninitiated, to SUPPORT THE CURRENT THING. Don’t ask questions. Just FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL.

Goodbye, Ukraine, hello abortion. That tired old ghost of a horse done beat to death, whose corpse farmer John is beating still. With Nietzsche’s Hammer, stolen with Occam’s Razor and Pascal’s Dice, on a meth-bender.

I am Pro-Life. We’ll get this out of the way now. I don’t care if it’s “lingering Judæo-Xtian influence,” I don’t care if it’s “male brain thinking.” However. Rather than address (((The Issue))) I’m going to look to another.

Where is the choice, really?

The opinionated whores we see interviewed: how many choices have they made? How many choices can they make before their bodies begin to fail and their choice is made for them?

Irrelevant. What is the choice? Is there one? Or is this about something else?

Abortion. Like every single goddamn surface level issue we face, the question is a false impressario. It isn’t about abortion. I mean, it is, and it isn’t. You go ahead and watch the “react” videos. Tell me these shrieking mental midgets are really, truly, honestly mad about slaughter-baby rights. Maybe they’re puppets and on some level they know a carcass on a string is all they’ll ever be, a dancing marionette with ZOG’s hand firmly up their puppet ass making their lips move.

My whole life I’ve become accustomed to the taste, the touch and feel of the word “no.” On the equal opposite, I’ve been denied the having of children. My wife has miscarried many times. You don’t forget the blood. Nature’s abortion, I’m told. We sought help. Insurance pays for abortions, but not the rehabilitation necessary to improve chances of conception. That’s a no. Could I have logged onto the World Wide Web and done Emo Band auditions? Sure.

But why, though?

You know why. My dignity. Something modernity seems to struggle with.

The question comes down to Right, and Wrong. Not right and left. Not lib and con. Not Nazi or Commie. None of it. Not even a question of what is right, or wrong. Remember:

QUID EST VERITAS.

A timely question. What indeed. Herein lies a problem. How many assholes with opinions investigate? How many own their answer? That was rhetorical. You already know. You know damn well.

The overwhelming bulk of folk you see, have given it nary a thought. Their “thinking” is merely puke. They puke up the slop they’re fed by their masters in the mask of a truth, a right or wrong. It remains that you can, with the image of power, make anyone think anything. Institutional power controls the conscience of the majority, who are unthinking animals. There’s your Veritas. Where nuance is not, my dear, you’ll find truth is also not.

Maybe I have friends. Maybe they’re undergoing IVF. Maybe the new laws will prevent them from completing cycles because there is the question of selecting which fertilised specimens are implanted. There is a eugenic question here because the “choice” is made. This will be defined as an abortion, which is another means of the Gubmint controlling who lives and dies. Then we have questions of euthanasia, of dieing with dignity. Then there is drugs. Then booze. Hell. Potato chips. It’s never been about life. Nothing you see on TV cares about that. There’s another Veritas. Abortion should be easy. But rather than allow for gut instinct, we have legislative morality. Cases of incest or likely death of the mother, reasonable questions, are currently glossed over.

The only victory is LIBERTY from federal imposition. Something to remember for Monday. Because inasmuch as you define success based on court cases, you’re still a slave. I cannot rejoice over the recent “victory” because it is arbitrary, and temporary, and impermanent. It is the Gubmint controlling an outcome, and circus seals clapping. Now jump for your fish bits, gorge on all that freedom and don’t forget to buy my subsidised Freedom Blazer model mobility scooter. How does the Gubmint control thought so effectively?

Infinite reductionism.

Everything is reduced to Pro or Anti. The why is as easy as anything. Such simplistic thinking necessitates reliance. The Gubmint presents as pandering, and the right constituents gobble it up like a whore about to go down on the same man who’s been feeding her a script to read to her mother who is disgusted by her Irish sunglasses.

There is an endless march of things to ask, about life, living, right and wrong. But it’s easy to glom onto that reductionist, reactionary trash. Nobody wants the responsibility of actually interacting with morality. Morality is a relationship; with God’s(s), Nature and Reality. By necessity it becomes interactive. You don’t preach to morality, you debate with and negotiate for morality. See my last blog entry.

If you parrot a line, your choice is made for you. That includes the line “of course a woman has the right to choose.” Define choice. Embrace responsibility. Conduct intelligently. Own your morality, if you don’t, ZOG does, and you earn what you reap, because you’ve sowed it.

Think.

Do this, we can build a better future. Know your feelings, but own your mind. They often speak two languages. Do you know them both? Tell me. I’ll be curious to hear from you.

Either way, I’m going back to my bench to see how long I can survive being under the Bar with a 2y/o poking me in my spleen.

Wassail, fellow thought criminals of the interwebs.

Advertisement

29 thoughts on ““Choice”

    1. Thank you kindly. May I ask, does Britain have similar issues in regards to the Pro/Anti/Choice programming?

      It may be a stupid question on my part given that globalism has levelled the playing field somewhat in terms of Neoliberal (or whatever we’re calling them this week’s) manipulation of domestic morality. Still, I know despite the general interchangeability of domestic politics there are still a few differences yet.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not a stupid question. It’s made me think … and look up the legal requirements. So abortion is legal here in the UK up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy under the Abortion Act 1967, in other words, in the pre-Woke days. I understand that’s in line with most of the rest of the world. I think you have the meat grinder of Planned Parenthood in your country knobbling the judges etc. I’m not aware of them here, unless they are disguised by the Marie Stopes clinic.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Interesting. That seems more sensible. Here they’ve had discussions about whether one can abort post-viability. Which is monstrous at best, no matter what conflictions one had regarding the relevance of choice in the matter. It boggles the mind.

        Last night I was listening to a podcast put out by a British Nationalist party. Of course, they routinely discuss “American” politics which I’m sure they know well foreshadow what happens to you all across the pond. And the topic was that. A point one of them made is that, while undeniably savage, the Gubmint can easily use the new laws to accelerate the outbreeding and demographic replacement of Heritage Americans, in that the coloured population will increase by virtue of theirs is the demographic most inclined to actually secure abortions rather than discuss them, which could conceivably lead to an overtax on the adoption agencies when those who might have invariably killed their children will have shuffled them away, leading to a cavalcade of other mostly tax and infrastructure related problems.

        Which is admittedly not a thought I would have had myself.

        Like

  1. The choice is a woman’s whether to allow conception, presumably. Whether to keep or raise the result also falls primarily on the woman, ultimately.

    I knew I didn’t want children, so I made sure I never got pregnant, despite sexual experimentation in my younger days. Still I know several women who have had abortions, and most regret it. It’s something they never forget, even if no one ever knows or judges them. They judge themselves, and that is punishment enough.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Maybe.

      I won’t lie to you, I have very little room in my heart for pity in this arena. Maybe it’s just my autism. When it comes to the stereotypes. That is. I know there are exceptions to that. There is one logical conclusion for the horizontal bop. And there are times when complicated pregnancies may indeed justify life saving measures resulting in termination.

      What grinds my gears more than anything, is the lack of forethought. Whoever “wins” these court cases, what I can’t help but feel is missing, is that the courts are still deciding who lives and who dies.

      I mean, shouldn’t “we” “know?” Do we need courts to say when and what life is? I fear it’s a slippery slope.

      I’m also going to go out on a limb and assume your women who live with the self-judgement probably weren’t the sorts making a parade and a spectacle with the shirts and the slogans and the threatening public officials. It’s primarily those kinds of people I find distasteful. And I’d hazard a guess they make it worse for women who live with regret. But, then again, like you, I took precautions, in that I waited until I was with the woman I married.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I think it’s a mistake to make decisions for other people, unless you are obligated to do so, as a parent or guardian.
    That’s why I agree with you that the state, or strangers, or even the churches, cannot know individual situations well enough to make blanket determinations.
    Who wins, under these scenarios?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Therein lies the rub. It’s like a bad middle school math riddle. Who do you choose gets hit by the train?

      Mask off for me now. The thing I come back to sometimes, is if my wife decided to murder my son – would I be more or less bereaved of his company than if she did it at a more judicious time? Now granted, it isn’t for voluntary abortion but I’ve seen men ruined by the loss of children. Their ruination in turn destroys their effectiveness which can only negatively impact those around that rely on them for emotional countenance. I realise that’s not every situation, and there’s no shortage of bad men who can either be callous or even instigate a woman into securing an abortion. In which case I’ll hold my tongue on what I think said man deserves.

      It’s my personal opinion that in the case of pair-bonded, monogamous relations that because the genetics of the child in question belong to both parties, who presumably took two to tango, than those two people are the only real claimants to the right and wrong of it.

      But, I also know that objectively speaking, there’s a degree to which my judgement is clouded. I’ve always veered towards the pro-life aspect, nuance and necessities aside. But now that I’m a father, my mind goes back to the Son we have now, and the exceedingly unpleasant involuntary miscarriages my wife went through to get so far as to have him. I can only imagine how physically and emotionally traumatic a voluntary late stage would be. Presumably much worse than the early term miscarriages she endured. I also remember my niece, who died in utero having been strangled by the umbilical cord a week before the due-date, and my other sister who had a botched abortion as a girl and can now never have children (or function as a stable adult) – no matter how much she regrets what she had done. Neither sister ever recovered. So, I guess, I’m inclined to see the potential harm involved in things as probably outweighing whatever moral virtues might be applicable, least of which being choice for its own sake. I also fear that we live in a culture where people take things likely, and I wonder how much unspoken damage could come about from things like unwarranted abortion, regrets about gender augmentation surgery, etc – permanent things that don’t have appropriate education surrounding them.

      I don’t think anybody wins, in short. So I think I’ll step down off of my soapbox. It’s a grim tiding, I think. Not enjoyable in the least.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Any decision is hard. It’s hard to make them for myself. I always wonder what might have been. It is not given to us to know the alternatives, but delaying too long also can lead to the decisions’ being made for us, by other people or by time itself.
        If your wife suffered miscarriages, she was brave to try again with your son. And your son must have had a strong will to live. Presuming the fetus has will, too, it raises the question of
        whether life has a will of its own. Do people or animals choose to live or to die at the times they do?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Big think, that. Understanding and we do that my answers come from bias, I think life has Will. I, personally place a high object value on Will. When it is exhausted there is only entropy, I think, which brings death before time would have it.

        The misses were not easy. And the emotional damage took a physical toll. Wee lad definitely had the Will. The cards were stacked against him. His heart was failing, which is what prompted an early delivery. There’s a few congenital issues which have resolved themselves, more or less. Incomplete kidney, etc. Year one was a very trying time. He was a sickly thing in body, but not spirit. Had he taken from us a weak spirit, I don’t think he would have lived.

        As to choice. I can’t say, but I can infer. I believe we have last, best destinies that are organically outlined by circumstances beyond our control. Similarly, whether we allow ourselves to be guided to this place – whatever it be- is in the purview of Will. We can choose to follow our inborne sense of right and place, which may or may not be preternatural, or we can act wilfully in discord and do things we know reduce our personal quality. But that’s an observation of palpable reality. I know some schools of reincarnation have it that we choose our lives according to some Akashic Record or room or other. I don’t know as I think that’s true, but I do believe we come into being along the lines of Clan or Family.

        I tend to think Grønbech had it when he wrote Culture of the Teutons. I have some stuff about it in my ‘archives,’ if you are ever bored some weekend or other.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. You continue to inspire thought, and more questions. Your concept of Will reminded me of the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who published his masterpiece, The World as Will and Idea, in 1818. Like so much else, I learned of this second-hand, from The Story of Philosophy, by Will Durant, published in 1926. Durant’s anthology has been on my shelves since college days, but only recently did I finish reading the whole thing.

        Certainly your son’s will to live must have contributed to his progress so far, and I agree that Will keeps people (and animals and plants) alive until that Will is exhausted. No one can predict or probably control that impulse without active or passive collusion with the individual being itself.

        Your idea of tribalism also intrigues me. I wondered what kind of tribe I might identify with, but couldn’t. Maybe I am a tribe of No Tribe but am cautiously accepting of all. I am a philosophical traveller, resting briefly in friendly environments, but without the desire to overstay my welcome.

        I am rooted like a tree on turf that has been in the family for generations, but I imagine I could leave it at any time. So far, I haven’t had to make that decision. I do like knowing neighbors, and our shared history, to a point, but our contact is limited. We help each other when a hurricane knocks trees down around our houses and the electricity goes out. Is that a tribe?

        Liked by 1 person

      4. I think maybe. I don’t think Tribe has a be an intimate thing. Nor even does Clan. Family should be, by definition perhaps. But I think of these things in terms of degrees of loyalty and respect, both of which can at times be benefitted by distance. I’m afraid, unfortunately, that this is one of those things that I could personally define out of existence.

        I think of Tribe as being conditional. The conditions hinging upon their contribution to contiguous culture, a kind of superimposition or Will of a permutation of a people to carry on. But that’s an idealism. Presently I think we have to start from where we are, barring anything sufficiently superficial like doughnut tribe or tv show fan tribe. Something I think has been fostered to prevent real belonging, is this tendency to make surrogate and simulacrum like quasi-relations around media staples. Thus, in our current iteration of Post-American culture I think it’s tough to find a launchpad. Human nature seems to get in the way, our notions of individuality have been skewed I think by the media.

        But that’s just me. I’ve never read Schopenauer, I’m afraid. Or Durant. The whole of my philosophical journey has been Locke and Hobbes (whom I maintain would make aj lln excellent crime fighting duo), Nietzsche and Merton. It never fails to surprise people, but I don’t like reading philosophy so much. The whole aim of it, I feel, is to rewrite people’s thinking. Perhaps with noble intention, of course. At least when it comes to religious study, the intent when evangelistic is naked, and when it is scholarly typically so dry as to prevent too much saturation.

        If I haven’t said it before, I view Will as a kind of animating force. I’m tangentially aware of a movement of thought from (I believe) Victorian England which had it that all life is, is motion. Mechanistic. I don’t disagree, but I also don’t think the buck has to stop there. If Volition has as an avatar Motion, than it strikes me that Motion requires a degree of conscientisation. The writings of Grønbech have provided me a stopgap for the time being. I have a series in my archives if you are ever bored – Groenbech wrote, among other things, about the cosmology of the Teutons which can be a remarkably complex, but betrayingly organically intuitive thing.

        Like

  3. Choice can be curtailed by excessive freedom deemed “liberation” as folks lose sight on where they came from/where their going under the altar of pursuing this/that trend/talking point/fling/fancy/filler in life/etc. The whole, “Too many choices lead to confusion, indecision, and dissatisfaction.” Has truth to it. I think of choice/freedom as something that exists most when you live outside the bounds of legalities/civilizational red tape. The more contracts you make to various bureaucracies, corporations, institutions, etc. the less real choice you’ll end up with.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ah, yes. Liberation. The freedom to be ZOG. I agree, I think. But I’m also a turbo Sperg who thinks dating is child’s play, believes in pair-bonded lifetime monogamy as the ideal, and thinks of “therapeutic” abortion as an abomination.

      But I hold these values because… forgive me… I find them to be self-evident. Not necessarily because of any creator, but because I perceive their long-term effects as being better for a stable society.

      And I can’t stress enough. The abortion question, I think, is filler. It’s simply about getting the people to consent to acceding to ZOG’s definitions of choice. The “Right” here has one only a temporary alignment with a system that hates them. Although, I understand the argument of those who claim change comes from within. To those I would argue the only victory is when the right people BECOME the Republican and Democratic parties. And even then, the cycle continues because the majority of bleating betas will simply coalesce under the new and improved regime and turn off their brains saying /our guy/ won, vis a vis Trump before everyone else caught up to bitter cads like me and saw the yarmaluke dent in his toupee.

      ZOG breeds complacency in advance so it can rise again later. The only antidote, I’ve come to believe, is fiercely localised tribalism. Which isn’t to say that tribalism can’t be informed by a system of government, like say Anglo-Saxon Liberalism (Jeffersonian Democracy, etc) or National-Socialism. Quite frankly, with sufficient Tribal connectivity any form of government could be forced, forced to work.

      Like

    1. I wouldn’t say that: it’s different folks for different strokes is all, everybody travels different circles… Z.O.G. is an acronym used by fellow travellers in some dissident circles. Overwhelmingly, the term is used by Nationalists, mostly WhiteNationalists, but I do believe a select few Black Nationalists have used it. It stands for Zionist Occupied Government. The implication being that American Governance has been subverted, whose subversion along with Great Britain’s became obvious with the Balfour Declaration whereupon Western governments began to inordinately favour the Middle East, with unexplained deference to Israel, which had no clear benefits to Western Civilisation. The vehicle for this having been the Allied conclusions of WWII whereupon the March towards globalism became a default. Zionist refers to, I believe, Theodor Herschel who began the Zionist Movement which began as a means to create a Jewish homeland, but gained broad appeal among many Western intellectual elites, some of whom felt the reestablishment of Israel is necessary for the fulfilment of Christian eschatological prophecy. It was particularly amongst Evangelicals. The term can also refer loosely towards the Globalist tendency of having government absolutely separated from the interests of the people. The term can also specifically refer to perceptions of Jewish manipulation of or involvement in many influential spheres of operation whose workings drive cultural movement in the West such as media, banking and psychology.

      That was a mouthful, I’m afraid, but it’s one of those esoteric things that has a lot of historical baggage.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your eplanation. We just crossed responses, as I was writing you about Will and tribalism.

        The Jews seem to be getting a lot of press these days, but I’ve noticed on my own how they have influenced cultures around the world, throughout history.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It’s inevitable, I think, when one begins to ask questions of things, in earnest and without censorship- it’s an unavoidable arena. Whether honest or not, the questions are mounting. An action which our social currents is making increasingly impossible for exponential numbers of people. One cannot seek limelight and expect anonymity. Nor gain influence and expect ignorance.

        You’re welcome, of course.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Questions, asked without preconceived judgment, inspire thought, which is my intent. The free answers inspire more thought, in all parties involved. There is no end to thought, no final answers, but therein lies its creativity.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Those are points to look at. It was in a response to Ms. Dieu-Le-Veux, but there is also the problem of ‘the way it is.’ If, and I stress if, constituent populations are prevented from procuring abortions than the coloured Dependent population will skyrocket. White Saviour Complexed women will be expected to sacrifice their own motherhoods and goddessships to ‘serve the greater good.’ They will in turn cuck weak men who will sacrifice their bloodline for social capital. (Leaving better men to theirs, but with an added struggle.) It’s an antiwhite weapon either way, whatever one may say of Margaret Sanger now. And there is a lot one could say.

      That being said. Abortion is a bandaid still. I’m of the thinking that life can be made hard for the sorts who murder babies ahead of time. Social demands placed on populations, moral expectations. And repercussions for failure. If we stopped paying ghetto trash to have infinity kids, knowing their infantile reasoning and high time preference always lead to short term solution- than we’re all the better.

      I forget who, now. But some southern politician had made a motion to consider sterilisation of people seeking indiscriminate, unnecessary abortions. Another for a cap on welfare collection in reference to undeserving homes.

      Assuming one could fenagle it in such a way that it doesn’t become a weapon against us, I’d think these things would fare us much better than dealing in non-medically-necessary abortions. But that’s just me.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s