Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

The case for voting for Clinton

25 Comments Posted by on January 29, 2016

Yes, Trump is lots of fun. Having Mexico build a wall makes me giggle too. Shitting on Saudi princes on Twitter is priceless. But, but, Trump may not be all that cracked up when he gets the presidency. He’s doing lots of stupid stuff too. Bombing ISIS? Come on. Pandering to conservakin voters has its backside too.

Take this:

WATCH: Planned Parenthood Capitalizes on Zika Tragedy to Promote Abortion in Latin America

Fuck yeah. That’s exactly that they should be doing. That’s perhaps the best, the most important single policy that any country on earth can be pursuing. Go promote abortion in the third world. Go limit their fertility. Don’t liberals like to talk about root causes? Well folks, the root causes of third world immigration into Europe and America is overpopulation in the third world. Wanna fix that? Then send Obama’s minions and go tell them about grrl rights and abortion. Great stuff. Please, fund Planned Parenthood. Fund it lavishly. Give it tons of money. And staff. Lots of staff. Diverse stuff. Whatever. Just send them away to preach their mission.

Having planned parenthood go to poor countries is even more important than stopping the rapefugee crisis in Europe. I’ll sign a treaty allowing 2 million refugees a year in exchange for Planned Parenthood having full authority in any refugee-sending country. In 20 years you get their TFR to 0.9. Then after they have a demographic crisis, you can send the rapefugees from Europe back home. Win-win.

So hey, vote Clinton. Shit is fubar already, Trump probably ain’t gonna help much. Crushing anti-abortion activism though could actually save the day.

Uncategorized

25 responses to “The case for voting for Clinton”

  1. Pingback: The case for voting for Clinton | Neoreactive

  2. Handle January 29, 2016 at 20:34

    It’s like Saudi Arabia sending off their craziest Wahhabis to go fight jihad or be Madrassa Imams, just so long as they do it over there.

    Reply
  3. Contaminated NEET January 29, 2016 at 21:53

    It’s a good idea, but the Beast is wise to it. For at least the last 25 years, promoting population control and abortion in the third world has been a little… icky. Don’t get me wrong: justice, liberty, and human flourishing demand that white women in rich countries have a lot of abortions. But, to try to impose that on the third world, well, that’s cultural imperialism at the least, and possibly even racist eugenic pseudoscience.

    Reply

  4. Pingback: The case for voting for Clinton | Reaction Times

  5. Tokoloshe January 30, 2016 at 20:28

    heh, Spandrell, wouldn’t it be easier to quit subsidizing their high TFR by ending incentives like open-borders and foreign-aid?

    Reply
    • spandrell January 30, 2016 at 21:46

      In the framework of the progressive state, it’s way easier to just increase funding to an existing agency which is ostensibly working for a progressive cause.

      Cutting foreign aid would mean dismantling a huge business which employs thousands of good progressives and their idle daughters. Can’t do that. What you can do is tell them that the new thing in foreign aid fashion is helping wise latinas to fight for their feminist rights by refusing to breed, instead of just giving them food.

      Reply
      • Steve Johnson January 31, 2016 at 04:19

        Practically speaking when has this ever worked – using progressive means to undermine progressive goals? Progs have an uncanny ability to completely forget their principles when they contradict the progressive project (mussleman immivasion and feminism, frex).

        This is bordering dangerously on “liberals are the real racists” strategy.

        Reply
      • Tokoloshe January 31, 2016 at 04:28

        Spandrell, perhaps you’re right. Don’t fight the tide, ride the wave. Maybe they should promote Jennerism while they’re at it:

        “Why breed when you can grow a set of bodacious tatas instead—we can make it happen!”

        Reply
      • Stephen W January 31, 2016 at 11:15

        The ever growing budget leads to bankruptcy. It seems inevitable because so many of the decision makers come from inside the system. But if you cut off their checkbook and stop obeying them, you will soon find they are just a bunch of inept fools.

        Reply
  6. AureliusMoner January 31, 2016 at 00:22

    So, we should send them foreign aid in manifold forms, and then also subsidize their abortion industries?

    Or, we could keep our dignity, refrain from proactively joining in with the murder of millions, and simply stop subsidizing their otherwise impossibly high fertility rates.

    Reply
  7. Flower Child January 31, 2016 at 07:31

    Admittedly though, massive capital misallocation in the form of aids research, mosquito nets, food, clean water and efforts to combat sickle cell anemia cause huge market distortions in the form of low-IQ-population-bubbles.

    Reply
  8. Stephen W January 31, 2016 at 11:10

    What does that Breitbart article have to do with Trump. I though Trump had a longe pro abortion history, Oh googling it just then he has recently gone back that for evangelical votes seems like a tactical flip flop for Cuckstian votes. A bit of a dodgy move I doubt his honesty but that also I don’t expect him to pursue anti abortion that vigorously. He still has my vote… if I was an American.

    Progressives have never pursued birth control etc in the third world very vigorously they want the hoards of low IQ brown people to destroy civilization. And you are never going to turn Africans into low fertility progressives anyway the only way to stop growing Africans is to stop sending them food.

    Reply
    • spandrell January 31, 2016 at 11:32

      Breitbart have been extremely pro-Trump since the beginning. And this article is just evangelical style anti-abortion hysteria. Nobody knows what Trump would do about abortion if he wins the election, but this kind of campaigning makes me feel uneasy.

      Reply
  9. B January 31, 2016 at 16:25

    The way to keep from having refugees destroy your country is not to destroy their cultures with evil Cathedral birth control propaganda. You’ve already lost that war, since your culture has been infected for a lot longer (and their aggression and stupidity provides them with a decent measure of immunity.)

    The strong are put on this planet to rule the weak, and the smart are here to rule the stupid. Not to destroy them. If you want to keep your country from being destroyed by third world refugees, close the borders. It’s not hard. If you want to address the root cause, it is that their home countries are very poorly run (and sustained through Cathedral aid). So export good governance, and Africa and the Middle East will once again be nice places to live, producing way more than it takes to sustain their populations. You will benefit, they will benefit, everyone will be happy.

    Reply
    • spandrell January 31, 2016 at 16:29

      There’s no human way to have Egypt feed its people for much longer. Let alone Africa.

      How the hell are we going to export something we don’t have? Exporting good governance is pointless and expensive; we learned that 200 years ago. Using the third world to send their idle daughters for virtue signaling is a more profitable proposition for the ruling class.

      Reply
      • B January 31, 2016 at 17:07

        Egypt would be able to feed the rest of Africa if it were properly managed.

        It is, sadly, not properly managed, thus unproductive and incapable of feeding its own population.

        >How the hell are we going to export something we don’t have?

        Well, there’s your answer. You should focus on getting you some.

        Reply
        • spandrell January 31, 2016 at 17:53

          Either you know something I don’t know about farming, or the 3 million hectares around the Nile can’t feed infinite amounts of people. It’s good land, but there’s a lot of Egyptians. And they gotta grow some cotton for export too.

          Reply
          • B February 1, 2016 at 09:44

            This sort of thinking was heavily promoted in the 60s and 70s by the likes of Paul Ehrlich, and then discredited by the Green Revolution. But nobody who was anybody paid any attention.

            The reality is that even if the Egyptians engaged in zero productive activity aside from growing food, if they used modern technology efficiently, their land would be way more than necessary:
            http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/9582/how-many-people-can-you-feed-per-square-kilometer-of-farmland

            There also are many, many other productive ways of using Egyptian natural resources. And the population is quite sufficiently smart for manufacturing operations (given a foreign managerial cadre.)

            Reply
            • spandrell February 1, 2016 at 10:50

              The Green Revolution already happened, and it was applied to Egypt and beyond. It’s not like they don’t know about new crops, fertilizers, precise irrigation or even GM seeds.

              With all the technology in the world, at some point you run to the limit of land productivity. Japan’s agriculture is extremely productive and well managed. The land is great and well watered. They still can’t feed themselves without imports.

              Now if you actually know something about farming, and you’re saying that presently Egypt’s farming techniques are backward and there’s still room for improving crop yields by doing X or Y, I’d like to see some figures. But there’s no freaking way you can feed 2 billion people with the farming land around the Nile. You could clone Borlaug and make 1 thousand copies and you still couldn’t pull that off. Mentioning Ehrlich as if I were some retard doesn’t make it so.

              Reply
              • B February 1, 2016 at 11:35

                >It’s not like they don’t know about new crops, fertilizers, precise irrigation or even GM seeds.

                You know, there were studies showing that in the 19th century, Indian weavers, working on the same exact equipment as British weavers, in factories built and run on the British model,were something like an order of magnitude less productive. I know Egyptian farmers are not near as efficient as they could be, because they are Arabs. Reasoning by analogy, I’ve seen Arab SF and SWAT guys operate. They had the same kit as Americans, and had had the same training (actually, more) and amount of experience (actually, much more) than the typical American equivalent. Yet even with Americans holding their hand, they were maybe 1/20th as effective. So why would the farmers be comparable to their american counterparts in productivity?

                The “limit of land productivity” is a constantly moving target. Using 19th century farming techniques, the world population of the 1960s would have starved. Using 1960s farming techniques, today’s world population would starve. To assume that the world population in 2040 will be using today’s farming techniques and thus will starve is shortsighted.

                Reply
  10. Alex February 1, 2016 at 20:15

    How about fewer abortions for white Europeans & Americans?

    Reply

  11. Pingback: Alles dat je als Nederlander over Donald Trump moet weten | Alfa NL

Please comment

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

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s