Abortion: the hidden holocaust

by David Hamilton

More than 6 million babies have been aborted since the Abortion Act 1967 came into force in Britain and around 75 million in the USA! There are 500 abortions every day in England and Wales and the figures show 67% of are carried out before the 10th week, and 89% before the 12th week. There are about 190,000 abortions a year in England and Wales. The official practice is that an abortion can be performed up to 24 weeks and needs the consent of two family doctor’s. The woman can seek a second opinion or go private. It is usual in cases when the child is likely to be disabled or not expected to have a high quality of life.

The debate is between liberals and feminists on rights, but is never on the woman’s duty to our posterity: the needs of our ethnic group are ignored. The two sides argue where the rights lie, couching the argument in rational terms. But what about our natural instincts? What about our emotional bonding with our people and the consequent responsibility for one another and the continuity of our people?

This is part of the “Ideological Castes” war on nature and the separation of sex from procreation is instilled in sex education, which has a little bit about how to do it but is mostly about how to avoid the consequences through contraception. Abortion is the next step in this process of avoiding children, and because it is the common prejudice even women who morally object feel obliged to have abortions. The authorities could encourage acceptance of deformed people and make more help available but promote abortion.

Like other liberal causes it is always discussed as an individual matter: one that only affects individuals. It is also personalised in a feminine way:” Oh, dear how you must have suffered.” However, it is a collective issue and concerns us as a group. It was revealed that a quarter of births in Britain are to foreign mothers and this together with the promotion of homosexuality is part of our demographic decline.

What libertarians and liberals overlook is that they who advocate individual rights does so as part of a people by history, tradition and emotional bonding, are brought up and formed in that culture and made what they are by it and are not really independent individuals. That imposes an obligation to the group not just the self. The following shows the falsity of this pretence:

Homosexuality is a non-productive sexual activity and the dispute over the Wolfenden Report of 1963 highlights the gap between the two liberal positions involved. The report did not equate crime to sin, and morality was private, a matter of choice and free judgement for individuals. The law should only be concerned with immorality for two purposes: to preserve public order and decency, and to protect vulnerable people from corruption or exploitation. It is separating pleasure from responsibility. The other side of the Liberal gap was represented by Lord Justice Devlin who disputed the distinction between a private sphere of morality and the public sphere for a single sphere of morality which often conflict but “shared moral attitudes, the public morality, is an essential bond of society: if this dissolves, society dissolves.” This did get close to the need for men to father babies and do their duty to the group as whole not just think of personal pleasure.

From the 1960s the New Left changed the Liberal concept of individual rights to “Group Rights” and Women’s rights are an important part of this ideology and abortion a major principle: the other justifications, “It’s a women’s right to choose” a “women can do what she likes with her own body” follow from that. Women’s rights override inhibitions about killing the foetus even though it has been found to be more developed into a person in the womb than thought in the early 60’s since Leslie Neilson’s ultra sound pictures in the late 80’s. These abstract universal, rights do not allow for changes in awareness. If women have no control over their pregnancy they are denied a public role. This abstract but highly emotional argument helps separate a woman from her people her community and replaces them with an artificial, abstract category of “identity” and “group rights”. The issue is not how much of a person the foetus would become but that it would become one: it would become one of our men or women to keep our people going into the future.

The National Health service is a State body for socially engineering the population and in 2005, for example, the NHS funded 84% of abortions.  Of these 52% were carried out by independent Doctors on NHS contracts, and 89% were foetuses under 10 weeks. Medical abortions were 24% and of these 1% or 1,900 were because there was a risk that the baby would be handicapped. There were 7,900 non-residents in hospitals or clinics in England and Wales.

Theoretically, The Abortion Act allows doctors and nurses with a conscience to opt out of “treatment authorized by this Act” except in emergencies, but they have to prove their “conscience” in a court of law. The tenth report of the Social Services Committee of 17/10/1990 showed that despite the conscience clause those who dissent from the orthodoxy are penalized by having great difficulty in getting appointed or training in Obstetrics and Gynacaelogy. In practice to further their careers they have to conform to the state orthodoxy. An MP who supported abortion, Emma Nicholson, told the House of Commons, “General Practitioners in my constituency and elsewhere tell me it is virtually impossible for a doctor to refuse an abortion under the workings of the Act.” (Commons Hansard. Cols 249-250. 24/4/1990)

There is the aspect of decadence or what Mark Steyn calls civilisational exhaustion. It works by progressives providing rationales for our moral and spiritual weakness: On the 24th of October 1963 Professor Dennis Gabor gave the Thompson Lecture and claimed that “Having large families is the one luxury civilisation cannot afford.” He foresaw a transition over the next 40 years into a life of leisure because of modern technology replacing human labour. At the same time a Bill to provide free family planning on the National Health Service was being promoted by a working party under Profesor Lafite of Birmingham University. On the 1st of November 1963 the Cambridge Union society voted 147 to 136 against the motion “This House considers that abortion should be made legal.”

Avoiding children is also part of feeling civilized and in the effete middle-class ethos it is civilized to limit the size of one’s family to maintain their comfortable standards and to be rational about one’s life. There is a sense of taming the wild nature! Several children would entail a less self-consciously controlled way of living. Then there are school fees. There is a new but not cultured middle-class from ordinary backgrounds who want to enjoy themselves without responsibility for bringing children up. The Economy of decadence and luxury: After the destruction of our manufacturing industry people like Mrs Thatcher were telling us we were to become a service industry. The concern about animals becoming extinct is a projection onto nature of our willing our own extinction and saves us having to face it.

The fear of overpopulation does not apply here naturally but because we are not replacing our population. The shortfall is filled by unassimilable immigrants. Our population is getting older and we are not producing a workforce. It seems that when a civilization becomes comfortable and feels safe it ceases to strive and philosophies of ease are developed to rationalise decadence and to justify it. This entails a gradual loss of individual responsibility for the wider community and civilization as they no longer see their duty in perpetuating it. Paradoxically, abortion is part of our modern civilized view of ourselves, but beneath this the same barbarous instincts to survive only now are justified by science or rationalism rather than religion and they come out in a different way. We look back on certain practices of the past and regard them as utterly barbaric - human sacrifice, burning heretics, by reading, say, Thucydides and think how primitive, or we shun the Bible out of our sense of progress as a barbarian tract, but support a woman’s wish to have her babies murdered - future ages will look back on allowing women to kill their own babies in their thousands because they might be inconvenient, with the same feeling of disgust as we at former barbarian practices.

There are of course biologico-philosophical arguments about when human life starts, but it seems distinctly forced to suppose that a few hours between pre- and post-birth constitute a moral difference; and, the argument about a woman doing what she likes with her own body is another self-centred and indefensible view. Always in these arguments people think of themselves as living in bubbles without responsibility to our group and to future generations.

One faction in the liberal parameter does not regard the unborn child as a person, and on those grounds say it has no right to life.  The emphasis is on whether the mother has the right to give birth or not, or what right has another to force her to give birth. To the opposing side the foetus is a person. Their debate is between conflicting rights. We have a lack of control over our fertility and this is something to control in a rational, civilized society. Nature, and that includes us, must be tamed as we flatter ourselves that we have transcended human nature.

It hampers our public and social lives and young women want to continue in a life - style. This is separating women from their natures. Most women want to feel they have a rational choice and are not determined by their being.

We have been degraded by the elites to “Partial-Birth” abortions which is up till 9 months pregnancy. These were performed legally in the United States until banned by George Bush in 2003. It is not done just on babies who are severely deformed or dying but also on the inconvenient ones. The method is that the abortionist is guided by ultrasound till he finds the baby’s leg and grabs it with forceps and pulls into the birth canal whence the abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head. Then the abortionist then rams scissors into the baby’s skull and opens the scissors to enlarge the hole, removes the scissors and inserts a suction catheter to suck the baby’s brains out, the skull collapses and the dead baby pulled out. Is that all our children are worth? If that is not a brutal murder what is? Little wonder that these people are often obsessed with the Third Reich’s eugenics programmes. They themselves are just as evil, perhaps moreso as they do this not for ideals or because they were ordered to but for a wealthy, comfortable life for the convenience of the group-rights of women.

Proponents of abortion claim that it is rare for women to regret having had an abortion, but post-abortion services like BVA and Life receive hundreds of calls every year from women suffering deeply after abortions, sometimes years after the abortion. Post-abortion trauma is a recognized medical condition. As abortion is often undergone to keep a pregnancy secret from husband, parents or others, there are strong reasons for denial that can worsen the effects of PAT. It is a consequence of women acting against their own instincts and brings a heavy price.

Forty two-years of prejudice in favour of abortion has led to a loss of respect for human life and an acceptance of a utilitarian approach to human life as we see in the acceptance of embryo research, passive euthanasia and the arguments now being used in favour of physicians assisting death.

There is a growing counter movement among the public as developments like 4D images have caused discomfort among about late-term abortion, but the majority of abortions are carried out during the first three months and there is less shift in public opinion on early abortion. However, the fact that junior doctors appear to be increasingly reluctant to be involved with abortion suggests that the message may be getting across to those who are directly caught up in the practice.

Abortion is part of the attitude the Establishment is enforcing. If you rebel you are oppressed, labelled negatively or punished. BBC News 29/6/2007 reported that Sarah Scott a teenage mother was prohibited from wearing an anti-abortion T-shirt to school in Aberdeenshire. She was threatened with “exclusion” because a teacher found it offensive. Her views had been formed following the birth of her four-month-old son Jacob: “I was not just wearing the T-shirt for the shock factor ... it is wrong to kill a baby.” “I feel I am the one being targeted because I am anti-abortionist. Yet other pupils’ have T-shirts displaying the Playboy logo, which promotes pornography, were not threatened with exclusion.” The ploy that words cause offence is used when the authorities want to suppress dissent.

We have a duty to our ancestors when we inherit what they left us to pass it on to our posterity - ours! We cannot do that while we are aborting our children.  It is the moral duty of our young people to have as many babies as possible to save our people from becoming extinct or pushed out of homes and communities by faster breeding immigrants. We might be giving our children up to servitude to Islam if we do not resist the evil intentions of our rulers.

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at 04:29 PM in Social Conservatism
Comments (45) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by Q on July 21, 2009, 05:12 PM | #

One faction in the liberal parameter does not regard the unborn child as a person, and on those grounds say it has no right to life.

I light of what science has revealed about the embryo and the point of conception, that position held by the libs cannot in any way be taken seriously; it’s a concept conceived in the pit of hell. The truth is: Feminazis and abortion doctors are a bunch of baby-murdering-monsters on the level of the Manson Family x 75 million.

2

Posted by Fr. John on July 21, 2009, 06:38 PM | #

I don’t want to bring in the moral/religious issue, but clearly, this is what the last forty years has been- a massive Jewish attempt at the destruction of Christendom’s race, and Christianity thereby.

As Hilaire Belloc said, “Europe is the Faith; the Faith, Europe.”

Which ethnic/racial subgroup has been in the forefront of this genocide, using talmudic rationales and ‘code words’ to change perceptions about the morality, then the ‘chicness’ factor, in aborting a one-night stand?

Which ethnic/racial subgroup worked tirelessly to decimate White society by sexual libertinism, and miscegenation, while NEVER allowing or countenancing the same ‘responsible’ child bearing/out-group ‘breeding’ among themselves ?

Which ethnic/racial subgroup were in the forefront of legitimizing sexual deviancy, starting with the Stonewall riots in ‘Tel Aviv on the Hudson’? 

And which sexual deviancy was promulgated and encouraged by the SAME ethnic/racial subgroup, to seek Christophobic laws to legitimize an abominable behavior, such as the specious “Matthew Shepard Hate Laws’ Bill, so recently enacted by the apparatchniks of the Barack Bolshies?

Only one group comes to mind.

And at their feet is also laid the crime of KILLING GOD. (Just for the record- and no, no man, be he Pope, Patriarch, or President of the world, can undo that heinous crime!)

So, in light of that demonic bloodlust, what’s a measly 75 million unborn babies?

Oh yeah, there’s also the ‘ritual slaughter’ for that same ethnic subgroup’s religion, that is now a proven fact by the SAME PEOPLE.

http://www.israelshamir.net/BLOODPASSOVER.pdf

not that I’m naming names or anything….

““The Jew will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jews.”
  - Saint John Chrysostom: Six Homilies Against the Jews

3

Posted by Al Ross on July 21, 2009, 07:36 PM | #

Those logic - defying MR commentators who order their strange lives according the the supposed wishes of an ancient Semitic tribal deity have absolutely no business telling rational people how to conduct their affairs.

Here’s a specimen of Christian logic : The Rev Paul Hill, in 1994 at a Florida clinic, murders Dr John Britton (and his bodyguard) then surrenders to police telling them that he has done his duty as a Christian by preventing the deaths of ‘innocent babies’. The “babies” are not, in fact, babies. They are, typically, embryos without a nervous system and, unlike the pregnant woman who may well suffer if she does not have an abortion, these clusters of embryonic cells do not suffer.

Of course, IVF, a procedure which is routinely performed on old Jesus’s female votaries, kills conceptuses at two stages and meets with little of the religious - mania - driven animus accorded to abortion.

The problem is the incredible Christian belief that old Jesus has injected a ‘soul’ into, say, a pregnant rape victim but it remains unclear whether the sexual act itself was inspired by that magical, longevity-blessed Semite. Perhaps this interesting question has not occurred to the limited Christian mind.

4

Posted by Q on July 21, 2009, 08:10 PM | #

Human life begins at the point of conception, that is a scientific fact. At what point we assign value to the unborn is a moral question. When do you assign value to human life? At the point of conception? At one month gestation? Three months? Nine months? When? Only after birth?

What say you, Aqualung?

5

Posted by James Bowery on July 21, 2009, 09:50 PM | #

This is a perfect example of the need for Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society.

People who are not part of the same human ecology, part of the same State, part of the same moral territory, part of the same domain of honor, part of the same theocracy; have no business telling each other how to or whether to raise their kids or kill their kids.

6

Posted by James Bowery on July 21, 2009, 10:52 PM | #

Fred, I would not want to live in a State where abortion or birth control were practiced.  Let people who believe as you and I do about abortion prove the virtue of their beliefs without interference from the “freedom of choice” folks and let the “freedom of choice” folks exercise their “choice” in the form of assortative migration to keep them out of our States—at a safe distance.

Their immortal souls are their responsibilities.  If they are deceived and will not listen to admonishment, then let them go somewhere else with those who mutually consent to their behaviors and taste the fruits thereof.

But where you and I would probably part company is in our treatment of infanticide.  I have seen enough damage done to normal children in families where there was an autistic child—damage that cannot be blamed on the parents—that I would vote to acquit any parent who killed a profoundly autistic child.

And, no, I would not accept the State’s intervention in the family to save the child.  I’ve also seen enough of the kind of people who run government facilities for mentally disabled to know that the likely result is sexual mutilation of the children who are “cared” for by the government.  Whenever government lets some adults grab the children of other adults, it always attracts child molesters to government and, yes, I do support a parent’s right to kill a child rather than turn it over to the child molesters.

Ultimately, the parent child relationship is part of a natural rights heritage that holds sway over my or your preferences.

7

Posted by Mark I. on July 21, 2009, 11:37 PM | #

All this talk of “morality” is counterproductive.  Morals are commands/imperatives, they’re abstract and have no relation to reality.  “Morality” is only as valid as the authority which proclaims it and the muscle which backs that proclamation up. 

Abortion isn’t “immoral.”  It’s a genocidal attack on my people.  Merely recognizing it as such is reason enough for us to defend ourselves against it.  We don’t need a “moral justification” to defend ourselves from genocide.

Setting up laws and organization for states or for racial preservation - a necessity for us - isn’t “morality”.  It’s arbitrary.  Efficacy of policy in no way depends on this imaginary “morality.”

8

Posted by James Bowery on July 21, 2009, 11:54 PM | #

Mark I: The act of genocide is the abuse of the Federation by our enemies.  There are many facets to it but the bottom line is undeniable:  Government sponsored race replacement in our own lands by the tens if not hundreds of millions.  If the Federation were kept to its proper, limited, role, daughters would be raised by their own people to value their own people—and kept out of the clutches of the mind destroyers in media and academia who want nothing but their money and their sexual services during their fertile years.

9

Posted by Matra on July 21, 2009, 11:59 PM | #

Abortion as it now exists is bad for birth rates, bad for white-race survival, immoral, damaging to societal morals, damaging to women’s psyches, damaging men’s and women’s immortal souls, and in the later stages of pregnancy certainly, is murder of the most gruesome sort imaginable.

Though I agree with most of the above I don’t see how legal abortion is bad for whites from a ‘white-race survival’ perspective.

According to some stats I’ve seen white women make just under 65% of the female population of the US but account for only one third of the women having abortions and those would include white women who got pregnant with non-white men. Around 35% of abortions are performed on black women who only make up about 12% of the population. Hispanic women also have abortions at twice the rate of their percentage of the population. In recent years anti-abortion groups have been pointing this out and claiming Planned Parenthood puts the vast majority of its clinics in minority neighbourhoods - presumably due to demand rather than being ‘Klan Parenthood’. If abortion had not been legal for the last few decades the demographic situation for whites would be even worse than it is now.

10

Posted by Q on July 22, 2009, 12:09 AM | #

Matra,

Black and Hispanic women get pregnant more frequently than White women, so your statistics are essentially meaningless.

11

Posted by Q on July 22, 2009, 12:21 AM | #

Strike that last comment. I agree with Matra.

12

Posted by Mark I. on July 22, 2009, 12:33 AM | #

Mark I: The act of genocide is the abuse of the Federation by our enemies.  There are many facets to it but the bottom line is undeniable:  Government sponsored race replacement in our own lands by the tens if not hundreds of millions.  If the Federation were kept to its proper, limited, role, daughters would be raised by their own people to value their own people—and kept out of the clutches of the mind destroyers in media and academia who want nothing but their money and their sexual services during their fertile years.
-James Bowery

Precisely.  My question to you is:  How do you propose to fight the apathy?  Apathy is the biggest threat to our people’s survival.  Getting the white masses to care for their own genetics plus a safe living space for the same is the most insurmountable problem I’ve seen.

13

Posted by Save the good White babies, abort the rest on July 22, 2009, 03:00 AM | #

around 75 million [abortions] in the USA!

Who cares?  The majority of the fetuses aborted in the USA were non-White - that’s good news.  And many of the White fetuses that were aborted were from Whites too poor or young to take care of children - many White trash in the USA are in to abortions, so the abortion of White trash genes is actually a good things in eugenical terms. 

If abortion had never been legalized in the USA, that country would currently be stuck with tens of millions more Blacks, Hispanics, etc.  Think about it.

And who cares how many abortions there were in the UK?  That island is already WAY too overcrowded and has been for decades now - that island shouldn’t have any more than about 30 million people living on it - but currently about double live there.  That’s real bad ecological news.

14

Posted by Guessedworker on July 22, 2009, 04:33 AM | #

Abortions by race in USA (1995):-

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_race.asp

15

Posted by Steven E. Romer on July 22, 2009, 04:47 AM | #

Abortion is killing life, there is no question of that. We kill in society for different reasons which we consider moral. We have the death penalty. We go to war. Other killings warrant stiff penalties. THIS is the real issue here.

The litmus for morality is the future of our people. SO here are some examples how that would work:

Abortion should be mandatory for all rape victims, but especially other races. There are upwards of 80,000 white victims of rape by black men a year. (37,000 reported, plus the fact that rape is one of the most underreported crimes—on the order of 50%). White women should also be warned about hanging out with or being alone with blacks and that they could be subject to abortion. (the rate for white on black rape is ZERO).

Abortion for people with above average IQ, or some talent which is important to society should be illegal. Additionally, since men are drafted into the military and lose control of their bodies and lives if it is important enough to the defense and existence of their people, women shoudl also be “drafted” to have babies. If superior women do not by a certain age, they could face prison—just like men who avoid the draft. If they cannot care for the children then they can give them up for adoption. The whole argument of “our bodies ourselves” ends when you consider that the largest danger to the future of the human race is that it can wink out overnight if women decide not to have children. This is so important to our future that abortion should better be decided by courts on a case-by-case basis if necessary or just disallowed completely. It was never an option in the history of our people before and it is better if it is not now except in cases of rape. But you could also make all the same arguments about birth control too. I am against that as well for one reason—it destroys the future of our people. Other races might NEED birth control, but it DESTROYS ours clearly from the record we see today.

These issues are matters of state, and should be in the constitution.

16

Posted by Dasein on July 22, 2009, 06:01 AM | #

I wonder what would be the effect on the abortion rate if women were told that they could undergo the procedure, but without any form of anaesthetic.

17

Posted by Robert Reis on July 22, 2009, 04:54 PM | #

This song says it all.
My America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTW0y6kazWM&feature=player_embedded

18

Posted by Matra on July 22, 2009, 05:05 PM | #

GW’s link states that approximately 60% of abortions carried out in 1995 were for white women with the rest classified as black/other races. It is important to note that those percentages are consistent with the statistics for later years. The site uses the CDC as a source. If you go to the CDC website to see stats for 2000 you’ll see things aren’t so clear. In addition to changes in how statistics are gathered each year not all states (including California) are always included in their figures.

Here are some quotations from the CDC website on gathering abortion stats by race:

Race was categorized by three groups: white, black, and other races. Other races included Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaska Native, and women classified as “other” race. Ethnicity was categorized as Hispanic and non-Hispanic. As in previous reports, race and ethnicity were provided as separate characteristics and abortions were not cross-classified by race and ethnicity. Abortion numbers, ratios and rates are presented by race and by ethnicity.

So Hispanics were not included in the Other category of race in 2000, and probably not in 1995.  Only the various small - almost statistically irrelevant - American Indian and Pacific Islander ethnic groupsare included in the Other category.

Census Bureau estimates and birth certificate data indicate that the large majority of Hispanic women report themselves as white (7). Therefore, data for some white women actually represent Hispanic women.

With Hispanics having more abortions per capita than whites I see no reason to doubt the numbers in my earlier post or the point I was making, namely that WNists should not be in favour of criminalising abortion.

19

Posted by White Preservationist on July 22, 2009, 05:27 PM | #

I thought this was a pro-White website that believed in eugenics? 

Abortion has already done eugenic wonders in preventing too many low-IQ non-Whites (and low-IQ Whites, too) from breeding out-of-control within White countries.  Why is that a bad thing?

“Historically, eugenics has always been a significant component of the intellectual underpinnings – and political impetus – of the movement to legalize abortion.”

20

Posted by Dasein on July 22, 2009, 05:41 PM | #

Differential abortion rates are not going to solve our problems.  If anything, more non-White babies will just push the day of reckoning a bit closer, a good thing.  Whites aborting their babies is the clearest example of our mass degeneracy.  WP, the eugenic thing would be to sterilize White women who have abortions (except in cases of rape).  If for no other reason, WNs should oppose abortion to help win over evangelicals.

21

Posted by White Preservationist on July 22, 2009, 05:44 PM | #

“Abortion has already done eugenic wonders in preventing too many low-IQ non-Whites (and lots of low-IQ Whites) from breeding out-of-control within White countries.”

I really ought to start better proofreading my posts before I hit ‘Submit.’  The word “too” in the above sentence from my previous comment should instead be the word “very.”

Also, I should’ve prefaced the above-linked quote with the sentence: ‘Even a left-wing Jewish-American feminist [Ginsburg] agrees that abortion has had positive/pro-eugenic results: [link]’

It’s just good ol’ plain common sense to support abortion in order to control the numbers of the less-desirable humans (especially non-Whites) in our midst, y’all.  What’s happening here?  Is this website losing its strong Darwinian basis of something?

22

Posted by Dasein on July 22, 2009, 05:56 PM | #

WP, how do you know that what you’re promoting is adaptive?  What traits are you interested in?  Would it be more humane to sterilize the child?  What are the effect on society at large if abortions are considered a good thing?  Why shouldn’t someone turn their disabled parent into hamburger?  Wouldn’t that be ‘Darwinian’?

23

Posted by White Preservationist on July 22, 2009, 06:04 PM | #

Dasein:“Differential abortion rates are not going to solve our problems.  If anything, more non-White babies will just push the day of reckoning a bit closer, a good thing.  Whites aborting their babies is the clearest example of our mass degeneracy.  WP, the eugenic thing would be to sterilize White women who have abortions (except in cases of rape).  If for no other reason, WNs should oppose abortion to help win over evangelicals.”

Good points Dasein.

However, Europe is now increasingly ‘post-Christian’ (i.e, Whites there have thankfully started to reject Judeo-Christianity en masse) and as such “trying to gain the support of Christian Evnagelicals” there in relation to the supposed ‘morality’ of abortion is a moot point.  However, do not take that to mean that I support the “abortion Holocaust” (to use this websites language) that is occurring in some White countries…I do not support the widespread abortion of White babies AT ALL - I want to see as many healthy White babies born and raised as is possible in our increasingly resource-scarce world.

In the United States, however, it’s a whole different story.  Seeing as modern ‘democratic’ politics in the USA and elsewhere has morphed in to an arena filled with all kinds of deceptive rhetoric (indeed, even though I’m not a liar I have enough common sense to realize that a certain amount of deceptive rhetoric is often necessary in order to succeed in politics), as a pro-White activist I would be more than willing to become nominally ‘anti-abortion’ in order to gain the support of White American Christian Evangelicals, but only if no more than a decade later we started chipping away at the anti-abortionists again and began to slowly institute strongly pro-eugenic abortion laws.

24

Posted by White Preservationist on July 22, 2009, 06:15 PM | #

Dasein:“Why shouldn’t someone turn their disabled parent into hamburger?  Wouldn’t that be ‘Darwinian’?”

Please don’t turn this in to a personal and emotionally-charged issue.  Please try to remain as objective as possible regarding these difficult and sensitive matters.  As soon as people start turning this in to a personal/emotional issue (as you just did with that particular comment), it starts to derail the discussion in to emotionalized hypotheticals that have no place whatsoever in rational, reasonable, and common-sense discourse.

Also, seeing as you are in to German philosophy (judging by your username), the following links are a few very quick ‘refreshers’ on the dire necessity of avoiding the near-useless emotion of PITY as much as possible - http://dailynietzsche.blogspot.com/2008/06/nietzsche-on-pity.html & http://dailynietzsche.blogspot.com/2008/06/nietzsche-on-pity-part-2.html & http://dailynietzsche.blogspot.com/2008/06/nietzsche-on-pity-part-3.html

25

Posted by James Bowery on July 22, 2009, 06:43 PM | #

I should probably do a followup to Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society talking about the problem of organic nations in Europe.  I understand that my thesis is rather insensitive to the perspective of those nations and rather than gloss it over it requires a more nuanced treatment.  Part of the problem is my lack of first hand experience with a true homeland—an experience that has spiritual dimensions less available to Homo Americanus such as myself. 

What I will say is this:  It appears to me from the outside that there are a number of good examples within the European experience of the sort of “State” to which I refer in my thesis that may apply to organic nations.  Specifically I see the Swiss Canton as a potential remnant of an ancient and natural path of truth and freedom which was once common across Europe—perhaps going back to the original Greek deme and beyond.

In any event, it seems that “home rule” is vital—nowhere more so than within organic nations—and that rather than assortative migrations according to ideological formalisms (ie: “propositions” or “causal hypotheses in human ecology”) there might be some other—more natural—dispute resolution system.  That’s part of what fascinates me about the older traditions of formal single combat—it seems to me to be an echo of an ancient and organic means of resolving matters of honor as moral territory.

In other words, it may be that in a truly organic European dispute resolution over an issue like abortion, that various “cantons” or “demes” would pursue differing directions based on various dynamic equilibria maintained through mortal challenges between relatively closely related—consanguinous—peoples.

In this respect “emotional” issues like abortion come to be expressed appropriately in life or death struggles between men claiming moral territory for their canton or deme.  Such questions become “settled” only to the extent that the individual adult men native to and rooted in the canton or deme consent.

26

Posted by Tim on July 22, 2009, 07:45 PM | #

Whoa, what a bizarre rant.

However, I don’t think it presents a very compelling case against abortion.

Let’s take the closing argument:

“We have a duty to our ancestors when we inherit what they left us to pass it on to our posterity - ours! We cannot do that while we are aborting our children.  It is the moral duty of our young people to have as many babies as possible to save our people from becoming extinct or pushed out of homes and communities by faster breeding immigrants.”

The world Hamilton describes is an insular and paranoid one, where the preservation of culture is more important than the wellbeing of the individuals within that culture. He appears to see people from other cultures as a threat that need to be combated - not with outright violence, but by out-breeding them. Yet this fails to appreciate that culture is not in-born. Culture can change. Someone of any parentage born into any culture can adopt its values. Perhaps Hamilton is suggesting that people with different coloured skin - even if they possess all his cultural values - are still not acceptable? Or that the ideal world is one in which his culture is the only one?

And there is no moral duty to prevent “our people” from becoming extinct - if anything, such a strange belief is a personal preference. One can choose to have as many children as possible if they believe it is good, but enforcing such behaviour on others would be a catastrophic intrusion upon their rights and could dramatically lower the standard of living within that community.

And all it’ll take is a potent meme to spread amongst “his people” to change them into “other people”. Breeding won’t prevent cultural change. If Hamilton really wanted to challenge other cultures, he could offer a worldview that was more appealing than theirs, perhaps winning some over to his cause. But he’s not going to do that with this paranoid rant.

That said, I can see that Hamilton has clearly different values to mine: he’s conservative, I’m more on the liberal side. As Jonathan Haidt explains, it’s unlikely we’ll ever see eye to eye.

27

Posted by White Preservationist on July 22, 2009, 07:52 PM | #

I am what a theologian or religious studies scholar might call a “deistic pantheist,” and as such I fully believe in a Higher Power or Higher Powers (call it whatever you want: the God(s), the Lord(s), the Creator(s), the Great Architect(s) of the Universe, etc…just not Yahweh, please).  I believe that a Higher Power and/or Higher Powers has ‘invented’ and is still present throughout our Universe, though I’m personally still not sure how ‘personal’/‘involved’ or how ‘remote’/‘distant’ said Higher Power(s) may be at the present time here on Earth.

As such, contrary to what others may think about my above statements regarding the supposed ‘morality’ or ‘immorality’ of abortion, I am not just another soullessly atheistic materialist and hyper-rationalist, though I am definitely very scientifically-oriented, reasonable, logical, and rational.

That being said, I completely and utterly reject Judeo-Christianity plus ANY AND ALL FORMS of so-called ‘Judeo-Christian morality’ whilst at the same time recognizing that there is certainly some value to be found in those Semitic/Near Eastern J-C moral codes.  On the whole though, they just aren’t for me - I am a White European, not a Semitic near Easterner or an Asiatic or an African…thus I believe that my religious beliefs must always reflect my racial/ethnic cultural heritage and not the racial/ethnic cultural heritage of Semites, Asiatics, and/or Asiatics.  I’m still sort-of in to Taoism and some bits of Hinduism, though.  wink

The main reason I totally reject Judeo-Christianity (along with Islam) is due to the fact that all of those religious belief-systems/moral codes are Abrahamic/Semitic/Near Eastern in origin, and thus they are entirely non-Western, non-European, and non-White.  Why should Whites around the world continue to look to the non-White Middle East for our religious beliefs/moral codes when we White Europeans are ourselves perfectly capable of doing our own moral and theological theorizing?

28

Posted by Harsh_Henry14W on July 22, 2009, 07:57 PM | #

Blacks have abortions at a rate THREE TIMES that of Whites here in the United States!  Imagine how many White lives have been saved by having less criminal Negroes around! 

Abortion is one of the few, very few, Eugenic-thingies happening right now!  And thank goodness! 

A recent call to an Abortion clinic in Idaho:

Donor: The abortion-I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?

PP Rep: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose
.
Idaho donor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

PP Rep: Yes, absolutely.

Idaho donor: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.

PP Rep: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable.

Idaho donor: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college

PP Rep: Alright. Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited, and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.

http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2008/02/27/58399.aspx

cool smile

29

Posted by White Preservationist on July 22, 2009, 07:57 PM | #

Me:On the whole though, they just aren’t for me - I am a White European, not a Semitic near Easterner or an Asiatic or an African…thus I believe that my religious beliefs must always reflect my racial/ethnic cultural heritage and not the racial/ethnic cultural heritage of Semites, Asiatics, and/or Asiatics.

Copyediting - the above sentence should read: “On the whole though, they just aren’t for me - I am a White European, not a Semitic Near Easterner or an Asiatic or an African…thus I believe that my religious beliefs must always reflect my personal White/European racial/ethnic/cultural heritage and not the racial/ethnic/cultural heritage of Semites, Asiatics, and/or Africans.”

30

Posted by White Preservationist on July 22, 2009, 08:30 PM | #

I also want to say that even though I’m a Westerner of White/European descent who utterly rejects the Semitic-invented moral codes of Judeo-Christianity, I strong support the Christian religion when Jews/part-Jews (such as Fred Scrooby, Larry Auster, Paul Gottfried, etc) convert to it and seriously follow its precepts. 

Christianity is far superior to Judaism in every way - Christianity was meant to be (and actually is) a much-needed refinement of the hate-filled gutter religion of Judaism; Christianity was actually meant “for the Jews first, and then for the non-Jews” as the NT informs us.

The religion of Christianity, when it is seriously adopted and followed by people of ethnically Jewish descent, definitely seems to help refine and ‘heal’ the hyper-ethnocentric, greedy/selfish/acquisitive, and mean-spirited Jewish personality, along with at least put a damper on the many other brutish and extremely undesirable personal as well as collective qualities that are so often found amongst ethnic Jews. 

Thus I freely encourage any and all ethnic Jews to ditch the so-called ‘religion’ of Judaism (which is in actuality nothing more than a severely racist and Jewish-supremacist blood-cult that exalts Jew-led greed, mayhem, and darkness) and convert to the much better religion of Judeo-Christianity.

31

Posted by Al Ross on July 22, 2009, 11:15 PM | #

While it is certainly true that the cultivated bibliophile’s tastes vary enormously I have never heard such fulsome praise heaped upon the motley collection of dreary and grotesque tales which we know as the Bible until I read Fred Scrooby’s post.

As one might expect, Fred stands out from many of his fellow Americans, who, according to a Gallup Poll of some years ago were shown to admit that, although believing the Bible to be the true Word of God, they were unable to produce a majority of those polled who knew the title of even one of the four synoptic gospels.

For many moderately well - educated Aryans the Bible possesses neither the charm nor the dignity of ancient Aryan Classical mythology and the Jew - Book’s value as an historical document is nugatory.
Similarly, the Bible’s literary value is extremely limited even though it provided the English language with some well - turned phrases. Also, in the field of human interest that other collection of fictional, mono - ethnic exploits, The Sopranos, is ineffably superior.

32

Posted by Al Ross on July 23, 2009, 02:01 AM | #

The Sopranos is on HBO and this channel is widely available in the Far East, a region not without its charms for the (generally speaking) grudgingly respected White expatriate, e.g., Malaysia is entirely devoid of synagogues as there is an insufficient ‘minyan’ or congregational quorum for such an establishment. I’d bet Mayfair to Mogadishu that many MR supporters and others in the West would wish to enjoy, even temporarily, such happy Judenfrei circumstances.

33

Posted by Al Ross on July 23, 2009, 02:19 AM | #

By the way, Fred, you might consider addressing any queries or questions regarding Chinese mode of dress or tonsorial style to an instate source, e.g.:

http://www.vermontchineseschool.org/

34

Posted by Dasein on July 23, 2009, 07:31 AM | #

WP, the point of my hyperbole was not to make this personal or emotionally-charged.  It was to criticize the naive Darwinism pushed by some WNs.  There’s almost an assumption (I’m not saying that you make it) that whatever is cruel and pitiless is ‘Darwinian’.  In what sense is opposing current abortion policies non-Darwinian?  I haven’t seen a good answer.  The best people seem to come up with is that disproportionately affects Negroes.  So what?  So does Negro homocide.  The NSDAP made abortion illegal.  It’s a recurring position among far-right (normal) movements.  Our concern for life is what separates us from the degenerates.  If we want eugenics, let’s do it in a way that doesn’t involve vacuuming babies out of their mothers’ bodies.  Having said all this, I think the abortion issue is a distraction, a bit of managed dissent.  Conservatives, whose instincts should guide them to preserve their biological heritage, are wasting their time arguing with degenerates about something that is merely symptomatic of the underlying rot.

35

Posted by Q on July 23, 2009, 11:23 AM | #

I’m against the abortion laws as they now stand, because way too lax; I favor something much closer to the Catholic position on abortion though I am not as strict on this as, let’s say, Q says he is.

Fred, I’m thinking you and I hold similar positions.

Abortion for the purpose of birth control should be made illegal in the criminal sense. However, I think there must be exceptions for cases of rape and incest; in those circumstances the women didn’t willingly choose to engage in the sex act. Also if the pregnancy itself would cause the death, or serious permanent debilitating injury to the mother, she must have the legal right to abort. I base my thinking on the legal concept: If a person is to be held responsable for a criminal act such as murder, that person has to have clearly formed the intent prior to the act ... no formation of intent, no crime. Abortion for the purpose of birth contol is premeditated*. The exceptions of rape, incest, and the health of the mother are not.

* Of course many young naive women are intentionally misguided and deceived by the Feminazis as to when human life begins. They are victims of forced ignorance, ignorance perpetuated by the abortion industry itself. Eg., it was in the recent past, the Planned Parenthood ghouls squealed like stuck pigs when a law was proposed requiring an ultrasound so the mother could acually see the unborn baby prior to the abortion procedure. There central argument (con) was: it would cause too much post emotional distress to the mother if she went through with the procedure. Planned Parenthood prevailed. Pro abortionists are truly despicable.

36

Posted by danielj on July 23, 2009, 05:52 PM | #

The New Testament is not Semitic.

It is written in what is essentially ancient Greek vernacular.

For many moderately well - educated Aryans the Bible possesses neither the charm nor the dignity of ancient Aryan Classical mythology and the Jew - Book’s value as an historical document is nugatory.
..... blah blah blah

The Poetic Edda is a piece of shit compared to the Bible and you know it.

Also, it is absolutely essential to know the Bible inside and out to consider yourself a properly cultured Aryan. Stop being a silly, petty little man Al.

37

Posted by Al Ross on July 23, 2009, 07:29 PM | #

Whatever race the original apostles were, they were not Europeans (Paul was a Jew) and it was not until later that the Christian religion attracted members who were authentically Greek, Roman and Celtic and to make any ridiculous claim to the contrary is not simply silly and petty but indicative of little knowledge.

Perhaps, danielj, you should emulate your revered St Francis and preach your sermons to the birds. They at least possess the adequate cerebral bandwidth for the uncritical acceptance of ridiculous Christian hokum.

38

Posted by danielj on July 23, 2009, 07:46 PM | #

“Semitic” denotes a group of languages.

Fuck off properly.

Is it true you are an expat? Didn’t even have the balls to stay and fight huh?

39

Posted by danielj on July 23, 2009, 07:51 PM | #

it was not until later that the Christian religion attracted members who were authentically Greek, Roman and Celtic

They eventually bowed the knee though didn’t though?

Was it because it was compelling and true, or are we just weaklings?

Perhaps, danielj, you should emulate your revered St Francis and preach your sermons to the birds. They at least possess the adequate cerebral bandwidth for the uncritical acceptance of ridiculous Christian hokum.

I’m not a Catholic.

You pick the I.Q. test bud and when, if on the slight chance you somehow manage to come out on top, you can talk shit. In the interim, understand that just about everybody is bored with your comments since they are generally worthless.

The Narrator disagrees but doesn’t do it in the same insufferably boring manner. Take a pointer.

40

Posted by Al Ross on July 23, 2009, 07:59 PM | #

“Semitic” denotes a group of languages whose speakers have their origins in South West Asia.

Whoever it was who said, ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’ has not examined the contents of danielj’s head.

41

Posted by danielj on July 23, 2009, 08:51 PM | #

I wanna bury the hatchet with Al.

You’re an ally… I don’t know why we fight and I apologize for losing my composure.

42

Posted by Al Ross on July 23, 2009, 09:07 PM | #

That’s OK danielj, no apology necessary. I have maintained friendly relations with your co-religionist Fred Scrooby, whose transcribed verbal firepower is pretty well unmatched, because Fred knows that “it’s not personal” unless, as above, such a response seems apposite.

43

Posted by White Preservationist on July 24, 2009, 04:59 AM | #

danielj:They eventually bowed the knee though didn’t though?

Yeah, only after it was forcibly imposed upon pagan Whites on by generations of brainwashing and often even upon penalty of death.

Also, at the time of the spread of Judeo-Christianity (during the decline of the Roman Empire), many White kings/nobles/etc were bribed by Jews to forcibly convert the local peasants to Judeo-Christianity because the Jews realized that Judeo-Christianity put the Jews on some kind of pedestal (“Jesus, the ‘Son of God,’ was a JEW too Mr. Europagan…please don’t hurt us poor little Jews!  It would be a sin!  Have Christian mercy on us just like Jesus would!”).  It was also noticed that Judeo-Christianity made the European pagans more ‘peaceful’ and ‘nicer’ to interlopers and parasites such as Jews as opposed to the ‘savagery’ which Jewry suffered earlier under healthily ethnocentric European paganism.

Judeo-Christianity, like all other Jew-inventions, is rotten through and through.

44

Posted by Dasein on July 24, 2009, 06:17 AM | #

If anyone has watched Valley of the Wolves, they might remember the scene where Gary Busey (playing a doctor, suggestion being that he is Jewish-American) is shipping organs he’s harvested from captive Iraqi civilians.  The camera zooms to the shipping labels, one of which says Tel Aviv.  The film (Turkish) caused a big outcry from Jewish groups in Germany, where it was hugely popular with the Turkish minority.  It was the first time I’d heard of Israel (or Jews) being linked to organ smuggling.  It was interesting this morning to see this as the most read story at BBC.  They say that the donors were Israeli, though it doesn’t say whether they were Jewish Israelis (it calls them “vulnerable people”). 

The film is not great, but it provides a glimpse into anti-American sentiment and memes common in the Middle East.  Worth watching if you can get a free copy.

45

Posted by M on September 08, 2009, 08:48 PM | #

This is the result of adultery. If the society believe in marriage, less reason for abortion.

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: Norman Lowell Book Launch

Previous entry: A toast to Gina

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

DanielS commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/25/14, 04:34 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/25/14, 03:22 AM. (go) (view)

Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/24/14, 07:14 PM. (go) (view)

Ebowling commented in entry 'Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored' on 10/24/14, 08:18 AM. (go) (view)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Thank You, Ebola-chan!' on 10/24/14, 05:55 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Comments On Vico by Enza Ferreri, Greg Johnson, et al.?' on 10/24/14, 05:47 AM. (go) (view)

Al Ross commented in entry 'A Labour of ... well, not hate exactly, but certainly scorn' on 10/24/14, 05:41 AM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/24/14, 12:15 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/23/14, 11:12 PM. (go) (view)

REIKS TERVINGIVISOGOTH commented in entry 'Mexicans versus Blacks.' on 10/23/14, 01:22 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/22/14, 09:50 PM. (go) (view)

Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 09:00 PM. (go) (view)

Tom commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 10/22/14, 08:22 PM. (go) (view)

VanSpyke commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 12:17 PM. (go) (view)

David Dupe commented in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/22/14, 11:37 AM. (go) (view)

Fuher-Blower commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 08:43 AM. (go) (view)

FB commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 08:34 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/22/14, 12:58 AM. (go) (view)

voznich commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/21/14, 08:29 PM. (go) (view)

HeyHeyWe'reThe commented in entry 'Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored' on 10/21/14, 12:12 PM. (go) (view)

Ebolatalia commented in entry 'Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored' on 10/21/14, 12:00 PM. (go) (view)

neil vodavzny commented in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/21/14, 08:24 AM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/20/14, 08:01 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/20/14, 07:48 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Self Assertion vs Self Transcendence of European People's Defense' on 10/20/14, 07:19 PM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'A Fight at the Highest Level' on 10/20/14, 11:46 AM. (go) (view)

Norman Lowell commented in entry 'A Fight at the Highest Level' on 10/20/14, 02:52 AM. (go) (view)

Thorntroll commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 07:40 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 09:45 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/19/14, 12:21 AM. (go) (view)

voznich commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 09:48 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 09:07 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 08:59 PM. (go) (view)

TD commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 08:18 PM. (go) (view)

Carolyn Yeager commented in entry 'Robert Ransdell: With Jews We Lose' on 10/18/14, 05:51 PM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone