Monthly Archives: March 2017

Conservatives Using Bona Fide Pro-Life Voters

It’s a known fact that issues such as abortion, the nuclear family and values inspired by religion are still used as leverage in western countries by the political right, making it appear more humanist by giving it a spiritual, ethical dimension, which as a whole it does not possess.

Due to the contradictions listed below, this right wing stance seems a mere ploy to lure well-intended voters who feel increasingly cornered by cultural Marxism, as well as disenfranchised amidst rapid, radical changes to their societies.

After elaborating on their stance on abortion, conservative pundits or commentators immediately imply that in order for it to become the norm, conservatism must be adopted as a package, even if the rest of its precepts are harmful (and potentially murderous) to other vulnerable people.

It is my conclusion that abortion laws are not intended for change by the “system behind the system”, as whenever conservatives do reach power, this issue, so often brought up during campaigns, is cast aside and suffers no significant alterations in the end. As a side observation, they are probably aware that changing the law overnight will not end this phenomenon, after generations have already been brought up to be nihilistic.

Progressive nihilism aside, the right-wing ideology in and of itself contributes greatly to the reasons abortions are sought.

Being pro-life, akin to many other stances attributed to a political persuasion, is not a partisan issue, but a human issue.

 

Berating single mothers and poor families, claiming they “breed for benefits”

Perhaps this should be the first (flaming) red flag when dealing with those who stand against abortion, at the same time incriminating people in a precarious financial situation as irresponsible for conceiving children, either willingly or accidentally.

Some of the main causes of abortion are economic instability, conceiving outside of marriage and the fear of a ruined future (disrupted studies, a diversion from the envisaged trajectory in life etc). Conservatives do nothing to encourage expecting mothers to preserve the hope that they can manage life in this situation. On the contrary – they continually berate them as failures, as promiscuous and future spongers off the state, thus making them think society will shame them if they carry the pregnancy to term. Voices on the far right are known to call for the sterilisation of poor or uneducated people (as the Daily Gutter Mail comment section demonstrates).

In fact, though the general impression is that Planned Parenthood is a product of leftist culture (due to its current support by progressives), its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a renowned eugenicist seeking to purge the US of categories she thought brought nothing to its advancement. She is now chucked in with the cultural Marxist threat, some conservatives failing to see many of their fellow right-wingers openly share Sanger’s views.

By demonising (or even demolishing) the welfare state and cutting assistance for pregnant women in difficult situations, conservatives are going to cause an increase in the number of abortions, not a decrease.

It should be noted that the “poor people should not be allowed to breed” mentality comes at a time when western countries are seeing a downward spiral in reproduction, to the degree of irreversible damage. And still, they insist having children is only moral within the (often temporary) confines of marriage and only when reaching a certain (often temporary) financial situation, which leads to high rates of infertility due to women postponing motherhood. Some of the same people argue women should be encouraged to stay at home and raise families – while aware one provider is often no longer able to secure a high enough income nowadays (not enough to meet their material criteria anyway).

Whereas the left paints the picture of its own utopia, so does the right, without recognising that the “quiet suburban dream” is no longer attainable for many.

Disdain for universal healthcare 

You’d think ideologues who care so much about every human being would extend their preoccupation to those who are already born (or pregnant). The reality is right-wingers abhor health care programs aimed at assisting financially disadvantaged people, whom they perceive (and publicly depict) as scroungers.

It looks awfully like they’d be willing to let people die unassisted so healthcare could be focused solely on “those who deserve it” (those who pay into the system). Of course, governments don’t ask for public consent when they spend money on foreign wars, yet when it comes to constructing an internal scapegoat, where taxes go suddenly begins to matter.

As a rational human being, one can only wonder why keeping everyone alive is not the foremost priority of any establishment, next to which anything comes second. Anyhow, claiming to be a supporter of everyone’s right to life and at the same time seeking to deprive vulnerable people of medical coverage is contradictory. 

Warmongering and disregarding civilian “casualties”

Equally perplexing, especially among conservative Christians, is the support for military operations abroad, as results are reported back in the form of statistics, after the dead have been counted, many of them innocent civilians, whose lives should matter just as much as those in the west.

One cannot argue for the sacredness of life since conception while turning a blind eye to the massacres committed, in real time, in the name of imperialism.

Disdain for immigrants who apparently “breed like rabbits” and their “anchor babies”

We’re being overrun. It’s like a locust invasion. It’s white genocide. We’ll be minorities in our own countries in 20 years’ time.

The fine, fine irony of this matter is that most of these immigrants come from more conservative countries, which have not yet taken the progressive route. But their traditionalism and strong family values are not wanted by these conservatives. I’m not referring to the warped idea of religious fundamentalists regarding family life, but to the fact that in poorer countries, hedonism and nihilism tend to be less popular. Let’s take Hispanics in the US as an example. In Mexico alone, according to the latest census, 93% of people are Christian and typically have more than one child per family. The type of traditional life US conservatives would approve of, if their own (nation, race) adopted it.

Meanwhile, their children are, when parents are undocumented, referred to as “anchor babies”, which is dehumanising and derisory, as if they had less potential than their peers. The right-wing public discourse is that they don’t deserve to coexist and study with native children, implying they were “born for the wrong reasons”.

 

For those who are pro-life, conservatism might look like the only option forward – if they believe that politicians and pundits are indeed sincere in their intentions, and choose to ignore the rest of the proposed reforms, seeing this one issue as the most important.

Personally, I understand this and sympathise, but I do not think for a second that it’s anything more than empty rhetoric on conservatives’ part.

If any legislation is passed, it will be punitive and not compassionate or educational, as a culture of genuine compassion is the last thing they seem to be interested in. They certainly do not consider every human being, born or not, a person. These are the same people who advocate for dropping bombs on foreign towns and villages; the same people who advocate tearing families apart through deportation.

The same people who manifest visceral disgust towards the underprivileged, whether they are poor, uneducated, ill, unfairly stigmatised as dangerous or undocumented. What would lead us to think they are really preoccupied with the unborn?

My logical conclusion is that it’s an issue of supply and demand, of securing a voter niche; securing the loyalty of those who reject progressive views in that sense. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

MRAs And Feminists – Finally Equal (In Giving Up On the Species)

Far from claiming finding a partner is the paramount of happiness or a sine qua non, I must admit the prospect of half-arsed, semi-contractual romance as a default for the future is indeed dystopian.

Regarding the opposite sex with distrust, as a habit or acquired reflex, diminishes (or destroys) the chances of natural bonding, which has been known as unreserved throughout history, at least as a matter of principle. When this is caused by the effects of artificially created conditions (laws, education which pushes women to believe they are typically victimised etc), acquiescence to an “us and them” stance is capitulation to this transitory, blatantly artificial nonsense.

Nature will obviously prevail in the end, as it always does. But given the general consensus that we only live once (though I don’t personally believe that), does it make any sense to sabotage our lives by not fully engaging, mentally and emotionally, with the opposite sex, just because our current culture prods us towards distrust?

Convincing yourself that this is how things genuinely are – that the opposite sex is disingenuous, profiteering, destructive and downright dangerous – is a bit like shackling yourself inside Plato’s cave, with the full awareness that there is another world outside, one of infinite nuances and choices, allowing you to be selective without barricading yourself for presumed self-preservation.

As humans, we are all aware (well, most of us anyway) that we are more than a cluster of basic needs, and that the people around us are more to us than those who happen to meet those needs at one point in time. Otherwise, we could all safely (clinically even) refer to ourselves as sociopaths. Which most of us, I dare hope, are not.

 

Given that third wave feminism was the first to poison the well in recent years, one morally tends to empathise with men’s activism as a stance of supporting the underdog, considering how much influence feminists have garnered lately. Except, when analysing their discourse, one can’t help but detect this tinge of bitterness, even anger.

The MGTOW movement for instance generates the most peculiar mixture of repulsive arrogance, heartbreaking defeatism and underlying psychological issues you can ever imagine.

Just like feminists picking on innocent men, these men have the full potential of rejecting (not necessarily sexually but as a chance of bonding) and vitriolically mocking women who have nothing but the best intentions towards them.

Cui prodest, you might wonder? What do men or women actually gain out of thinking this way? Who are they really getting back at by hardening their hearts in this manner?

My experience of life is, of course, subjective; by no means do I claim everyone naturally places the same empahsis on being open to others.

But I suppose if ever there was an actual effort to destroy the nuclear family, this would be the ultimate goal – getting men and women to give up on each other.

Some people acknowledge that and still play the game.

 

The Anti-SJW Movement, Degenerating Into Alt-Right Rhetoric

The last two years have seen an explosion of justified rebutting of third wave feminism and identity politics, after seeing them embraced by young people in particular as a result of far left influences on their education.

What started as grassroots defiance against language policing and exaggerated victimisation gradually morphed into vacuous entertainment, to later develop a rather dangerous side-effect: desensitisation to the threat posed by right wing divisiveness, by focusing solely on the division caused by the left. Naturally, desensitisation slowly turned into acceptance and then sheer enthusiasm, as right-wing ideas saw the perfect momentum during the US presidential elections and have continued to reel in more enthusiasts for “change” ever since.

The preoccupation to be anti-left has taken such proportions that the anti-SJW movement has become a self-contradicting one, equating its initial fight for freedom of speech with a return to conservatism, which is equally fixated in its rigours as cultural Marxism and attracts the same amount of blind, fanatical devotion.

Suddenly, these former defenders of free speech saw an opportunity for leftists to be vilified beyond redemption and rejoiced, perhaps as some sort of vindication. Suddenly, those who had argued so compellingly for diversity of opinion became fixated on shutting up the left altogether, towards a “bright future” of conservative conformity.

Which proves once again that virtue and pacifism are apparels of the underdog, to be shed when said underdog reaches a position of power or at least has the illusion of being able to socially annihilate its opposition.

That is why solidarity with a group or movement should be questioned by the sympathetic individual every step of the way, lest it might degenerate into something completely different from what was initially intended.

Needless to say, many social justice warriors are easy targets. Whereas it makes sense to call out (with trumpets blaring) the abhorrent practice of destroying people’s livelihoods for perceived thought crimes, it also makes sense not to use disoriented teens as hate targets in anti-SJW videos.

In that sense I think it is a stretch for grown people to berate (down to nullification) 15 or 16-year-olds who post content on the internet without realising they are not mature enough to understand what they are propagating. For many of them this will undoubtedly be a phase in self-discovery and it seems unfair to conflate them with the genuinely dangerous individuals brainwashing them. The ugly side of this movement consists of running these kids through the mincer just to produce more of the same conveyor belt “look at these cretins”, self-indulgent type of entertainment.

While blowing social media duels out of proportion, people’s attention is being diverted from the reality of what a shift towards the right will really bring, much of which is cause for great concern.

In conclusion, this might have started out with the right intentions yet has become another mental trap, keeping many from seeing the broader picture and shifting the focus from important issues onto inconsequential minutiae.

 

Internet Cult Posing As A Philosophy Group

People who have recently been exposed to Freedomain Radio podcasts and videos probably accessed them for an in-depth analysis of current events, as the material seems quite popular with the sceptic “community”, as well as the alt-right (the two seeming to fuse nowadays on social media).

Unbeknownst to new listeners, this group is a proper cult aimed at reaching young people at the age of individuation; it used to convince them to separate from their families by cutting all contact, a practice known as “defooing”, which has its dedicated website for members, defoo.org, reminiscent of Scientology or the Exclusive Brethren. Although apparently the advocacy for this has stopped (perhaps for legal reasons) the consequences remain.

The young people lured through discussions about politics, ethics, dogmas and so forth were encouraged to analyse their entire lives in ways which would lead them to think their families were morally corrupt and sabotaging them psychologically, at an age of being prone to rebelling naturally, which exacerbated the effect. They were encouraged to move out of their homes, which led to homelessness in various cases and at least one suicide, leaving behind dumbfounded families who only understood what had happened when discovering their children’s interest in Freedomain Radio.

From the start, members were told it was their duty to “get out there” and “become active” in order to help create a better world, and that occasional support such as the odd donation or product purchase was not enough for them to consider themselves “part of the conversation”.

As former members recounted, the group went way beyond what abuse recovery forums do, as it encouraged them to publicly berate the families trying to bring them back, even reading out private letters and emails for the world to hear, which reaches a deeply disturbing level of arrogance. Instead of the promised liberation, young people found themselves increasingly depersonalised, at least two describing a loss of interest for anything outside of group discussions.

Ad-hoc psychoanalysis was used by the leader to mimic a deep bond and understanding; it was also employed towards “recovering repressed memories”, in order to further antagonise them against their parents or even siblings and friends. They even used to provide those who wished to leave their families with a standard “goodbye letter”, in case they felt they could not formulate their own. Moreover, some of the most dedicated members ended up living together after “defooing”.

The group remains very popular today, continuing to attract those who consider themselves anti-system. Akin to any cult, they reject what their former peers have brought to light and berate them for being “weak enough to return to their morally corrupt families”.

There is plenty material on YouTube and dedicated sites, consisting of testimonies from former members and their loved ones, as well as the input of cult experts, confirming the nature of these dynamics.