Tag Archives: propaganda

Minds.com, Still The Better Option

I opened a Minds account when it was starting to gain popularity, about two years ago, something like that.

The platform is really decent in terms of interacting with others and uploading content, as well as chatting privately. And lacking censorship; you don’t have to worry about being reported for “offending”, whatever that means when simply exchanging opinions.

At some point it was overrun by the right and far right, as shown by trending themes. And that was a bit off-putting.

But however accommodating one might find Facebook, the reality is the platform monetises everything down to private messages, peered into for nefarious purposes.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal was of utmost importance. It explained so much regarding this so-called organic rise of the right, “coincidentally” around the time of major elections across the world.

And fair enough, there are many people duped or radicalised by such propaganda on these platforms designed for free speech.

But you as an individual can still communicate with your friends and acquaintances without having to worry about your every word being used against you or exploited for commercial purposes.

And that’s the main thing, I imagine.

The ability to express oneself without the worry of being monitored or reported for potentially offensive language, which is such a subjective notion, is also important. Even if you have to sift through really unpalatable stuff on a regular basis.

It really is paramount to feel safe from hysterical types likely to intimidate, censor or even report you as a result of taking offence.

The Microsoft privacy scandal added to the already existing Facebook controversy.

Perhaps these platforms based on free speech, coupled with open source software, are the actual way to go right now, without hesitation or delays.

Trump: The Grotesque Lie Sold To Apolitical Anti-PC People

This post is directed at whomever might recognise they’ve been, even for a short while, pulled into a pretty grim farce, while having a different perspective in mind to start with.

It was easy for decent people who pay little attention to politics to end up cheering for change, while sick and tired of being labelled as bigots for posting jokes on social media, Islamic extremism being ignored and their culture turning into a nihilistic, degrading mess by feminists and a new generation of Marxists.

In terms of public debate, opponents of “progressiveness” were more rational, more articulate, more humorous, more sensible. They seemed to engage in critical thinking, as opposed to the left’s constant regurgitation of cliches and demands for censorship. But were they right in the end, or were they basing their rhetoric on cherry-picked information, ignoring the elephant in the room?

Being optimistic about the future is a survival issue. I get it. Fighting the left and its thought-crime-based system is also a survival issue. But how long can someone ignore or downplay what is happening, while focusing on social media wars?

Torture and civilian massacres abroad, proposed as “security measures”

When watching well-crafted pro-Trump material on social media, you will notice 95% of it revolves around what is being said about Trump, as opposed to what Trump actually says. The man himself is rarely featured for more than a few seconds at a time, and that makes perfect sense: they have to avoid including “gems” such as those linked to above.

Trump’s views on dealing with suspects of terrorism is so inhuman it horrified even many republicans. “Torture works very well.” “You have to take out their families.”

Arguably, civilians are killed abroad on a regular basis. What lacks is the actual consent of the population, who has been for years told military operations attempt to avoid or reduce “casualties” as much as possible. What lacks is the complete perversion of public sentiment, the surrender to the darkest cynicism, in order to truly dehumanise others in the eyes of an entire nation, said nation dehumanising itself in the process. There is no lower level to stoop to, individually and collectively, than indifference towards (or joy at the thought of) massacres and torture.

Why are these issues never approached by Trump’s so called moderate, apolitical supporters? This is not a partisan issue; it’s a human issue. Is this the way to “make the west great again”? Are torture and massacres western values to “rescue” perhaps? Are they perhaps worth overlooking, while cheering on the rest of the agenda?

Trump, an advocate for free speech…?

A large wave of support for this person came from those who felt the left was encroaching upon their freedom of speech, given the censorship on social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Trump was suddenly seen as the underdog, the rational voice the left is trying to stomp on. In this sense it was easy for commentators to rout for him in droves, to collide with him for being censored. It was presumed on a mass scale that anything negative said about him was a lie, motivated by partisanship.

To clarify his approach to the press, you need to look no further than the development of his Aberdeen Golf Course a few years ago. He has used proven lies and bullying in order to cover up his abject treatment of local residents, whose homes he wanted removed as he deemed them unsightly for rich golfers to look at from his posh hotel. These were farmers and fishermen who had lived in the area for generations. Decent, honest working people. Aside from disregarding all those who tried to stop him from destroying a protected area of nature conservation, he made life very difficult for residents, on occasion cutting their access to utilities and refusing to repair the damage. He described them as pigs and urged authorities to remove them from the landscape his guests would want to gaze upon.

When an independent journalist documented this case as it unfolded, in all its ugliness, Trump’s representatives had him arrested for merely speaking to the people he was bullying. “I want real journalists”, he claimed while being handed an honorary degree from an Aberdeen university, despite protests from former faculty.

He uses force and intimidation to suppress any dissenting voice to his plans. He encourages violence at his rallies when dissenters show up, even if they are peaceful.

Anyone thinking he is an advocate for freedom of speech does not have enough information or has not thought this through. But as seen in that documentary, the man is an authoritarian and lies through his teeth; the truth is inconsequential to him. Other people’s rights, as a matter of fact, are inconsequential to him and he is willing to tarnish those who stand in his way.

Scapegoating entire ethnic minorities

As opponents of the radical left, we are probably too desensitised to this issue after years of progressives claiming a default victim status based on race, ethnicity, sex or sexual orientation.

So desensitised we might fail to grasp the implications of a president declaring anyone of a certain ethnic background as a potential threat, regardless of the individual in question. This became apparent when Trump’s immigration ban was enforced and there were reports of children and elderly people being detained at airports; some were put in handcuffs for hours on end.

Is guilty until proven innocent and the label of potential terror threat stuck to the forehead of just anybody from a minority group ever a good way to go?

This is no exaggeration; from one day to the next these people are made to feel unsafe and unwanted, prone to being targeted with false accusations, questioned on their private lives and basically treated like scum. The left is not hysterical on this one.

Why wouldn’t the average racist in the street target them with verbal abuse or even violence, when the president himself is declaring before the entire nation that every one of them should be regarded with suspicion? It’s an endorsement; a free pass to do so, at least when it comes to harassment.

It needs to be pointed out that while rightfully claiming certain regimes are oppressive and promote extremism, one has to accept there are many in those countries fleeing persecution: dissidents, apostates, gays and women who wouldn’t submit to the life imposed upon them. Blocking all immigration from those countries means blocking them as well from escaping to freedom (arguably, the US is not the only place they could go to but has been an option so far). Conflating extremists with the people fleeing from them is not a rational approach.

And I must point out the hypocrisy of those who are campaigning against Islam in general, constantly deploring its victims in the Middle East or in western Muslim communities, and simultaneously arguing those victims should be banned from entering a safe western country. I’m not talking about masses of un-vetted people but individuals targeted for dissenting.

Where would all the apostates who took refuge in the west be if all gates had been closed to them, as Trump supporters argue always should have been the case? Six feet under or having their bodies on display hanging from cranes. Vetting is one thing – indiscriminate banning is another.

Nuclear weapons not ruled out

So much for “Clinton was the only/ the major warmonger”. Trump is just as unhinged.

Tarring all undocumented immigrants with the same brush

It is safe to say that the grey areas on this issue are wearing thinner by the day, conflating hard-working economic migrants with rapists, murderers, paedos and drug dealers, as if they all deserved the same treatment.

Needless to say this experiment of mass deportation of undocumented workers has been tried before. One example is the state of Georgia, where in 2012 massive raids saw farm workers removed from the US, leaving farm produce to rot in the fields as locals were not interested in doing this type of work.

Meanwhile, when faced with this threat to members of their communities, entire cities and numerous places of worship are taking a stand, providing shelter and assistance to those who are simply there for a better life and not for a life of crime. These places are referred to as sanctuaries and are a method of peaceful resistance.

Again, this is not a partisan issue, it is a human issue and anyone should be able to see that.

I must say the way the right-leaning alternative media is scorning these sanctuaries is vomit-inducing. They are not meant to protect dangerous criminals but ordinary workers who risk separation from their families. Different faiths are coming together and opening their doors to those who need immediate protection. What would anyone even expect people of faith to do, if they take themselves seriously? How do Trump-supporting Christians feel about this, I wonder? Is the cognitive dissonance headache-inducing yet?

There is so much more to say and there will be as this has barely started.

The main point is sceptics have been sold a false image, a false promise, and it is coming at great cost to others. The left and right have no claims of superiority over each other.

We have been intoxicated by propaganda pushers with images of hysterical SJWs and pussy hats, to the point of equating them with “Trump’s opposition”. No reasonable opposing arguments, presented in a reasonable way, were analysed. It was black or white, right or left, authoritarianism or freedom.

The reality is anything but.

When It’s Time To Jump Off A Political Bandwagon

There is a classic anecdote intended to halt someone from taking a likely wrong path. The shorter version is “if you knew there was just a tiny bit of dog excrement in your food, would you still eat it?”

This can apply perfectly to embracing an ideology, political doctrine, religion or getting behind anything enjoying massive popular support.

It’s rather difficult, when the stakes are purported to be very high internationally, not to be mentally drawn, to some extent,  into a political struggle from overseas (unless you isolate yourself from any type of media). And realistically, many people who see themselves as apolitical (independent thinkers) have seen the pros of the US administration change in terms of loosening the grip of cultural Marxism, potentially with international ripples.

The left’s arguments and demonstrations have often been inept; incoherent; it was difficult to take them seriously when becoming hysterical about “pussy remarks” and parading as giant vulvae (with their heads as the urethrae I suppose).

As enthusiasm rose, the right-leaning alternative media started producing more and more pro-Trump material, which after the election has become 99,99% uncritical on very popular channels. By now it basically sounds like political propaganda, although most likely it is produced in earnest, as part of an ideological fight against the radical left.

Is uncritical enthusiasm ever a good omen? Probably not.

Among Hollywood’s snobbery, frequent violence from the left and theatrical demonstrations against “sexism”, one issue was overlooked by supportive channels: the reality of what is in store for that country’s roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants, many of whom have been there for years and have built their lives and families there. Whilst routing for an end to the PC culture, it was easy for any outsider to believe deportation would be focused on violent criminals, such as murderers, rapists or drug dealers – reality proves very different.

The cold fact is that a “deportation force” will be organised to hunt all these people down; I needn’t say what that is reminiscent of, to avoid sounding like a leftist. They will target everyone, in their homes, in the street, at their workplace. They will show up at the door, handcuff people in front of their kids, drive them away and all contact will be cut, just like that. No consideration to that person’s present eligibility to stay will be given.

And spokespersons for said administration refer to this as a fair and humane method, even though the reality of it is brutal and often makes no sense in terms of what the state would gain.

Someone can even prove to have built a business, employed others, supported a large family for years , paid taxes and still be thrown out with nothing but the clothes on their back and no right to any of their possessions, or even a chance to see their family before being flown back to a country they had left decades before, prone to homelessness and despair. That is worse treatment than serial killers get. And when the breadwinner of the family is thrown out, with no consideration for those left behind, that family likely ends up on welfare. What sense does this even make? Who benefits from this?

These people are part of their society, of their communities. And they will just disappear, one by one, overnight. Seriously, what does this sound like?

Nobody seems immune to the snare of a promised political change and as time goes by, polarisation becomes more evident, even if the starting point was a neutral one. This change has generated a massive wave of hope, as a middle-finger shown to the leftist establishment. Yet it will come with needless destruction of lives, on a mass scale.

And while this is happening, the right-leaning alternative media will most likely look the other way and sneer at SJW meltdowns over inconsequential matters. And will most likely keep arguing that the Trump administration is the way to the future, an example to follow.

Eerily enough, mass deportation has seldom been discussed during the campaign and is seldom discussed now. The focus for many alternative channels with a large following seems to be defending Trump’s image at all cost, down to minutiae such as what is tweeted about him. Strengthening the border is often described as blocking new immigration, not throwing out all those who already live there and have for years, decades even. That wouldn’t be too palatable for the average reader or listener, who can instead easily be led to think, through this communal omission, that nothing unreasonable is involved.

If there’s nothing concrete anyone outside the US can do about it, perhaps no longer applauding it would be a good option. Perhaps being honest about it would be a start.

There is some lucidity fortunately and I can only hope it spreads.



Leftist “Persuasion” Methods, From The Horse’s Mouth

Have you ever wondered how to reach a state of being able to live with yourself as a white or generally privileged person? It’s a tough one. But worry not; radical leftists have peppered the Internet with detailed instructions on what to think and feel, how to speak, how to behave and who you’re allowed to socialise with.

The articles quoted below give instructions on how to:

  • Cut family and friends out of your life for disagreements on social media;
  • Pester them until they cut you out of theirs, as an alternative;
  • Stop detractors from “harming” minorities by keeping their minds busy;
  • Pity them as fools and try to help them see the error in their ways;
  • Mob them in order to force them into acquiescence.

It’s very common these days to read articles which approach whiteness as some kind of degenerative disease which renders a person morally hopeless if not treated in good time.

Some of these articles are downright disturbing. They encourage – or even demand – that white people who aspire to be decent human beings should promote leftism to the point of cutting contact with all dissenting friends and family members over opinions on leftist activism.

There are guides on how to do it, which glorify this self-inflicted isolation as moral superiority. It is reminiscent of what Alan Watt often mentioned, regarding the Marxist push to completely isolate the individual by destroying bonds of loyalty and love, and only subordinating their mind to the state ideology.

To qualify for your contempt, your loved ones needn’t actually be racist; they only need to disagree with the methods militant organisations such as BLM employ and how they conduct themselves. Anyone who sees nuances in racial relations or disapproves of disruptive protesting is an intolerable bigot.The next phase might be advocating divorce over this stuff – seriously.

Let’s start with this article, which spells it out for us. It’s titled “The 7 stages of white people getting woke”. The most relevant paragraph is as follows:

Every woke white person eventually has to go through an exhaustive social media purge. (…) The random person from high school who’s always like, “Why doesn’t anyone care when a white person gets killed by the police?” Anyone who supports Donald Trump? Block. 

Ironically, whereas the psychological processes described in the list are internal and have no bearing on how society works, the only palpable result of this maniacal purge is alienation, resulting in a person only interacting with the echo chamber of like-minded radicals. The freshly groomed radical, much like a cult member, will now depend on an ideological group for all social needs, such as company, sharing thoughts and ideas etc. To be fair, the article only received criticism; however, this mentality is quite common.

A couple of comments are very relevant, pointing out the futility of the proposed method while simultaneously urging for action as opposed to mental wanking. Which means that one should not only support groups such as BLM by propagandising but actually participate in what they do. However obsessed the radical becomes with race relations, chances are they will encounter disdain from the very people they claim solidarity with, for still being a useless oppressor. Apparently, the only way to not be an oppressor is to join the front line (protesting, rioting etc). Otherwise, they oppress these people simply by existing, even if fanatically in accordance with their stance.

“Ally porn.
Misguided, misled and as miserably narcissistic as one could expect from a wp that uses the term “woke” to apply to the oppressor becoming comfortable with their privilege, and feeling validated as sociopathic cog in a murderous, antiBlack system.”

“If white people block racist white people instead of confronting them, they aren’t allies, they’re tourists. You want to make change,? Use your power as a white person to confront and try to change all those white people you want to block.” 

I would like to stress that even though this blocking caper seems effortless, it does entail cutting contact with actual people in your life, as opposed to simply erasing names from internet lists. This can lead to isolation.

Other militants for white guilt as a general concept (which should apply to every individual indiscriminately) argue an activist should manipulate reluctant relatives and friends into cutting contact instead, as to avoid appearing aggressive – by displaying such as obsession with the issue others will simply grow tired and cease the interaction.

Fill your social media posts with so much wise and unapologetic love and support for the struggles of people of color that your intractable white friends and family just can’t take it anymore.

They’ll either hide you from their feed or block you. Good riddance.

This is very twisted as it is phrased to give the impression that cutting contact is the actual purpose of the radical’s proselytism, as opposed to pursuing systemic changes. Which makes the whole endeavour look superficial and infantile.

Moreover, the article makes it clear that when attempting to change someone’s attitude, the activist should proceed with caution, witholding the automatically presumed disdain and masking it in an aura of compassion.

Imagine that within every oblivious white person is a racial justice ally waiting to come out. Invite in a little compassion for these white folks. 

You know they’re embarrassing themselves. You know they’re on the wrong side of history. It sucks to unknowingly say something ignorant or untrue or get stuck pigheadedly in a belief just because we’re afraid to entertain the truth.

The disdain becomes even more poignant further on.

Remember, every minute you spend engaging with a racially unaware white person is a minute they can’t spend antagonizing a person of color with their micro- and macro- aggressions.

By drawing hostile fire, you divert their energy away from expressing their frustrations in more harmful ways. And you exhaust them. And you might – slowly and imperceptibly – change their minds.

This somehow entails that antagonising minorities is the purpose of that person’s life, so that every minute of diverting their attention is an heroic act of stopping them from harming others. That’s what it comes down to in an SJW’s mind. 

No middle ground, no appreciation of that person’s character or an attempt to determine whether they are indeed racist or disagree on methods of activism, social policies etc. The person in front of the SJW is an aggressor, an inferior intellect who needs to be acted upon, diverted, manipulated and exhausted.

Another method of “persuasion” is silencing by mobbing.

Enlist Your Other Conscious White Friends

Have them engage with your commenters. Send them this article, tell them about your compassion strategy, privately message them, and ask them to step up for you on a trying comment thread.

Sometimes a second, third, or fourth voice can start to nudge a white person in the direction of greater logic and self-regulation.

There’s nothing like knowing other folks are paying attention and agreeing with the other side to elevate a conversation beyond name-calling.

Mobbing does not prove the validity of an argument; all it does is apply pressure by surrounding someone and bombarding them with an idea. It’s all about the number of like-minded people being mobilised at the same time into a discussion, to overwhelm a person or a smaller group. The direction of greater logic and self-regulation translates as backing off after being cornered, shamed or/and threatened.

There are numerous online resources to help conscious lefties deal with bigots in their families, as they take to the internet to seek guidance, unsure of how to behave. This is another example, involving someone who was agitated about his/her uncle making a supposedly racist comment online (referring to BLM, which means the comment could merely have been common sense), without inconveniencing him/ her on purpose. The advice given is predictable – to engage with the opinionated uncle and pester him with BLM propaganda.

A peace built on silence and censorship is a dumb peace – literally. And that peace is already broken as far as you are concerned, anyway, right? He broke it by saying something offensive and hurtful in public. That was his choice.

Now I have no idea what the guy actually wrote, it could have been bad indeed; the issue here is that he did not choose to break the peace with his niece or nephew, as the latter was not the recipient of said message. In fact, like every other person, he probably feels entitled to his opinion, which this article dismisses, suggesting that a leftie has every right to to try to dominate the speech and behaviour of everyone around them. They have to police, correct, persuade and even hassle, at all times. It’s fair enough to contradict someone if they make bigoted remarks in your presence, but hunting down their online activity as if it impacted you directly is a step too far.

The propagandist handbook is thick and intricate, and contains all the ingredients for fanaticism. When every person’s opinion becomes your business (or better yet, your crusade), the only one likely to end up being excluded is you.












Feminists, Abortion And The Media – It Doesn’t Get Much Sicker

Three Ways The Media Could Step Up To Stop Abortion Stigma

Whereas many feminist articles are of a cringeworthy stupidity, some are much, much darker. This one is potentially the sickest one I’ve read so far. I think even a segment of those who are pro-choice would agree. These are the main ideas:

  • Television and cinema productions should be used as political propaganda (which is the case already, but not overtly), in order to shape people’s moral values according to cultural Marxism. Depictions of abortion on the screen should be policed for conveying anything but the idea that it is always the right choice.
  • Abortion should be shown “in all its glory”, portrayed as a normal part of life and a positive decision women do not regret, in order to desensitise people into thinking there is no trauma involved.
  • An emphasis should be placed on “all its benefits”, disregarding the “scare tactics” of the “anti-choice” bunch (disregarding disturbing truths about its physical and psychological consequences, as well as the prosperous industry built around it).

Just reading through this is morbid and chilling.

I want to see people on my television having abortions. I want to see them thinking it through, weighing the options, and choosing what’s best for themselves and their families. I want to see people at the clinic, filling out the paperwork.

I want to see them in the procedure room talking to the doctor. I want to see them after their abortions as they wait to go home and in their kitchens having a bowl of cereal the next day.

I want to see people so sure about their choice they don’t think twice, and I want to see people not as sure, but who end up making the decision that’s right for them. I want to see people who never think about their abortions again, as well as people for whom they become a formative experience that impacts their entire life.

These are all things that people experience every single day, and I want to see them on screen. I demand to see them because representation is important, and we all deserve to see the real experiences we have day-in-and-day-out in the media. That’s the only way we can normalize these experiences.

In a matter of years, abortion has gone from being accepted as an extreme choice faced by women in circumstances of extreme pressure, to this – a normal, day-in-and-day-out experience. As a spit in the face to all those who have suffered as a result, in so many ways. The want it promoted. They enjoy watching these scenes;  they demand more of them.

These are the same individuals who also demand trigger warnings in literature courses, yet at the same time, revel in depictions of what is, however you want to frame it morally, a gruesome procedure, as described by medical staff who performed or witnessed it.

Never does this person care about the reality of those who regret having gone through with it. Where are their trigger warnings in this frenzied celebration of death?

The only thing I assume she does not want to see is the bloodied limbs scattered on a tray, the severed heads or the babies born alive and left to die. Or does she?

How long will it be until the above-mentioned images are themselved portrayed as normal, against every natural reaction a human being is born with (if they’re lucky enough to be born, nowadays)? I guess that answers it:

The thing is, though: We don’t just need to see abortions. We also need to see factual representations of what abortion actually looks like.

The only such issues mentioned in the other article (if you click on the link) are “cramps, pain, vomiting and blood”.  I guess the dead body is not factual enough; we can always leave that one out. The little cartoon also adds “the sense of pride in making the right decision”.

Some would argue that going from the acceptance of an irreversible act to pride is a very long stretch.

I also want to see all the people who have abortions.

Women, women of color, teens, mothers, trans men, non-binary people – everybody! I want to see people experiencing what all of these people actually experience.

Of course. Why should they be left out of the macabre party? The tone is very unsettling; it’s almost joyful.

Instead of depicting abortion using medical falsehoods and anti-choice scare tactics, we need more factual and honest representations that show abortion for what it is: just something that happens to some people.

Talking about honesty while omitting the most relevant aspect of this procedure: a dead body having suffered a horrendously violent death.

Decapitation is also something that happens to some people. Quite often, in certain parts of the world. And they surely celebrate it there. It’s true that certain folks – perhaps even most – can be desensitised to witnessing just about anything. All it takes is enough brainwashing and every natural instinct goes out the window.

Later edit

Actually, I was wrong. It does get sicker, but coming from the same band. Here is an article titled “5 Problems With Keep Abortion Rare.

Declared proudly by former President Clinton and repeated by “pro-choice” politicians over the last decade, the phrase often accompanies a plea to keep abortion legal.You’ll see it on signs and banners at an abortion rally,  with the phrase: “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Rare.” This sentiment is often championed and portrayed as “something we can all agree on.” But is it really a desire we have, let alone one that we should be making heard? Is it even right?  How does this kind of logic affect the abortion movement and all those who seek abortions?

Perhaps the logic is in not treating this lightly, as an ordinary occurrence, since it affects lives irreversibly. Perhaps it is in recognising the fact that no one grows up planning to have abortions; it is no one’s intent or desire when starting their intimate life to end up in that situation. Perhaps it is in admitting the difficulty and sensitivity of a decision most times taken after a long emotional struggle. Not to mention the intention to focus on prevention rather than women having to go through this.

As feminists, one would think they are all for this positive focus, instead of encouraging the use of a traumatic procedure as birth control. One would think they want women to experience as little suffering as possible, both physically and mentally. Why not make an issue out of using contraception and reducing the number of abortions then?

1. We Can’t ‘Keep Abortion Rare’ Because It Isn’t

Abortion isn’t rare.

1-in-3 women in the United States will have had an abortion by the time she is 45.

This is an experience that a lot of people have had, and it’s far more common than many of us are willing to admit. Thanks to that big awful bubble of stigma, many of us just keep our stories locked up and hidden away in shame.

Which doesn’t make it the optimal outcome or the status quo in perpetuity.

There were times in history when infant mortality was very high, and mortality in general, due to diseases which are now treatable. Most families would lose a child or two at a very young age, which amounted to grim statistics. And yet, thanks to medicine progressing, those statistics did not last forever.

Also, in our day and age, people are being murdered in remote parts of the world for heresy, homosexuality or adultery. That amounts to very grim statistics indeed – but does not mean that things will remain the same or that change should not be attempted where it is needed.

Beneath the desire to keep abortion rare, people say, is a desire to reduce unintended pregnancies, which is completely legitimate.

Unintended pregnancies are hard, can put undue stress on everyone involved, and can be reduced in pretty simple ways, like better sexuality education and greater access to contraception.

But the word being used here isn’t unintended pregnancies, it’s abortion.

And when people say “keep abortion rare,”they’re promoting a narrative that says abortion is inherently a bad thing.

But abortion isn’t something bad, and it isn’t something to be ashamed of.  It can actually be a positive experience for some people and is something that many people are glad that they have access to when they need it.

It’s unfortunate and hurtful to our movement when people who identify as pro-choice continue to view and promote the perspective of abortion as a “bad” thing and something to reduce.

The author somehow seeks to separate the concept of abortion from that of unintended pregnancies – which is disingenuous. To claim that something is needed and has to happen even though it is fully preventable in most cases is downright absurd.

It is never the ideal outcome – in fact it is the worst possible outcome of a sexual encounter (except maybe for HIV, some would argue). It is not a positive experience, but merely seen as the less disastrous option at one point in time.

The fact is, abortion is a relatively simple medical procedure and should be viewed similarly to other medical procedures in that all those who need or want it should have access to it.

Tell that to the families of the women who died during that “life-saving” “simple” procedure (not to mention their offspring, but I understand they don’t matter anyway).  Or to the women who became infertile. Or to those who are now regretting it.

I have to quote this in full because it’s not only imbecilic but actually chilling.

3. Not Rare, But Accessible

If we need a slogan, why don’t we make it, “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Accessible?”  Because that’s our biggest problem today.

With countless women needing abortions and not being able to have them due to legal, geographical, and financial barriers, the number of abortions in the US is, if anything, actuallytoo low.

When there are women who can’t get an abortion because they live in one of the 87% of counties in America that does not have an abortion clinic, that number is too low.

When there are poor women all over the country who can’t get an abortion because the Hyde amendment prohibits Medicaid from helping women pay for abortions, that number is too low.

When are there are girls under 18 who can’t get abortions because of parental notification laws in their state, that number is too low.

When there are women who don’t get an abortion because of scare tactics through crisis pregnancy centers and mandatory counseling laws, that number is too low.

When there are women who don’t get an abortion because of harassment and violence outside of abortion clinics, that number is too low.

When there are women and girls who don’t get an abortion due to the intense cultural stigma and shame surrounding the medical procedure, that number is too low.

We don’t need to lower the number of abortions happening in a time when too many women who need an abortion cannot get one.

I have to take exception to a couple of points. But first, let’s clarify that the number of preventable deaths and traumas in this world is never too low.

The author mentions women under 18. They are not women. They are minors and need protection from decisions which might harm them in the future. There are reasons these legal statuses are in place. You would not allow a minor to sign a legally binding contract but you would allow them to terminate the life of another human being, without being fully developed psychologically to make sure that decision is something they will not regret or become depressed about.

And since we’re on the subject of minors and their right to their own bodies – why not draw more attention to child brides in the Islamic world, female genital mutilation and teens being  raped by their “husbands” and forced to give birth naturally at a young age, which can cause irreparable damage?

Secondly, they mention the “scare tactics” through crisis pregnancy centres. These centres save lives day in and day out, not only by talking women out of abortions but by pointing them towards relevant resources which actually get them through the difficult times. They do not hide the fact that nothing is irreversible in this world except death. You can never bring back the dead, no matter how much you wish you could. Financial situations can be changed, studies can be paused and resumed. Relationships needn’t be terminated forever because of a disagreement over having or not having a child. And if they are, there are plenty more fish in the sea.

However, this is not the worst of it. The mask falls off completely in the following paragraphs.

4. Who Cares What the Number Is, Anyway?

Why is the number of women who are having abortions really the issue?

And is reducing or altogether stopping the rate of abortion something we really want? Abortions have been happening since the beginning of time, when women used herbs and other methods to self-induce abortions.

Abortions will never not happen – they always have, and they always will.

The difference we are fighting for is how they happen: in back alleys or in clinics? The difference we are fighting for is who can get them: wealthy women who can afford to get past the financial barriers put in place or everyone?

Women are not a statistic. We need to stop focusing on the number of abortions and the“making it rare” concept as if that really says anything.

Women (as well as trans men and genderqueer people) will continue to have abortions, and the number doesn’t matter. What matters is that those who need abortions can get them.

That was Margaret Sanger’s plan as well. Keep the masses in perpetual poverty and get them to kill their offspring, to stop polluting the gene pool with stupidity. That’s the whole idea behind your wonderful Planned Parenthood.

Why care about the numbers? Because there are enough people dying needlessly in this world, through war, starvation, violence and poverty. There is enough violence in this world to encourage people being ripped apart or burned to death in their mother’s bodies. Because there is enough trauma going around to encourage women to commit unchangeable acts, which they might later regret to no avail. Real trauma, that is – as opposed to reading “triggering” material in a classroom.

Because mass death is nothing to be celebrated or ignored.

TRAP laws, the laws that have been put in place to unfairly target and regulate abortion clinics to the point of causing many of them to close, was supposedly about “keeping people safe,”just as mandatory counseling and ultrasounds laws are supposedly about “keeping us informed.”

Stop with the paternalism already. These laws aren’t about protecting people. They’re about hurting them.

Right. Laws about information, sanitation and stopping body trafficking. Laws about protecting minors from being abused and exploited. Laws about not finishing off babies that are already born alive, as they were supposed to in the first place. The link the author provides only mentions rules which seek to ensure that the people performing abortions are certified doctors with a certain standing in the medical community – which would reduce back alley practices, as a human being with a functioning brain can quickly realise. The horror stories in the US are numerous. You can see many of them here, as well as success stories of babies who were saved from abortion  (the link is not showing properly, the letters are the same colour as the background for some reason, but if you click below you’ll find it, and if not the site is called Priests For Life. There must be a technical issue; I cannot get this link to be properly visible:


Although I am not a Christian anymore, I have full respect for what they have done and continue to do, as it genuinely saves lives. Father Pavone has done a really great job in revitalising the pro-life movement, through compelling argumentation and direct action towards saving people from being killed.

There are some Westboro-style characters out there, that’s true, picketing and rambling on about sin and the pit of fire in hell in front of abortion clinics. They are only bound to anger people and make them more determined in their thinking. Their only impact can be negative as they spread threats and condemnation instead of hope and alternatives.

But there are also very compassionate and dedicated folks who stand outside these clinics, provide ultrasounds in mobile vans, as well as heartfelt advice – and they deserve all the respect in the world. Because it takes strength of character for someone who realises what the taking of a life is to be in front of a place of such trauma and suffering (which is comparable to an execution wall, except worse), keep their composure and manage to reduce the number of those who suffer by convincing them to rethink. To anyone who is even slightly spiritual it seems unbearable to stand outside a place where you know people are being killed in real time. I personally don’t think I would have the strength to do that.

I don’t even care which God or force of this universe they are praying to – if they do so with the strong, sincere hope that lives will be saved. And if the power of their thought and energy, as well as their action, is enough to change the course of things, it truly is a miracle. With the risk of sounding tacky, it is a small victory for humanity – a victory nonetheless.

So the next time that you see someone at a pro-choice rally with a  “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Rare” sign or hear someone say it, consider starting a dialogue with them.

Talk about how the logic behind that sentiment serves to hurt the abortion movement by further stigmatizing abortion and setting us up for even more aggressive and regulatory anti-abortion laws that make accessing abortion ever more difficult for everyone.

Right, because that’s what feminists seem to idolise.

More death.

Not education, not prevention, not responsible thinking. Just more death.

As far as I know, the western world is not some huge death-worshipping cult. Not consciously, anyway. But these feminists are continually pushing the idea that it should be embraced and promoted.