Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Abortion

The most recent brouhaha is on Trump allegedly hinting that if abortion is murder, if it’s a crime, well then we gotta punish abortionists. Criminals are punished, right? I think I’ve never written on abortion on this blog, so let me put my two cents.

It’s hard to tell whether Trump is trolling or he actually means what he’s saying. I mean, the point should be obvious. Criminals are punished. If abortion is to become a crime, we should punish abortionists. If abortion is murder, we should condemn abortionists of murder.

Alas, nobody really wants that. Because people don’t really think abortion is murder. People say abortion is murder. People talk of abortion being murder as part of their signaling game. In modern America, and really America only, there’s a signaling game where two sides, pro-life and pro-choice, battle each other in the political arena about the morality of abortion. Everybody in America is supposed to pick sides and join the fight. The whole thing is wrong, very, very wrong. Completely messed up. Human is a political animal. Politics is about signaling. Humans will choose random topics and form teams to battle each other. That’s what humans do. But abortion is the last topic you should choose to have a signaling battle. Especially if you are in the weaker side. Now that Moldbug is back in the news cycle, I’ll use his authority to remind you all: the right can’t win by agitation. You just don’t.

Apparently the whole abortion debate started from the right, with Christian groups mobilizing against the legalization of abortion during the 1960s. So this is the rare rightist movement fighting against yet another move to the left. Well, let me remind you: the right is weak. The right is always weak. The right can’t win. Cthulhu always swims to the left. Picking a fight on abortion only caused the left to get serious on it, and escalate, coming up with the Pro-Choice movement in order to fight the right, and as it always happens in political movements, it has steamrolled the opposition, and spiraled into a huge international movement causing havoc everywhere.

Is abortion evil? When I read about how the Roman nobility became a bunch of decadent hedonists, that noble women in Rome engaged in abortion and infanticide in order to keep on having affairs all the time, I think it’s messed up. That people would rather kill a fetus, let alone a child, in order to keep on having casual sex is indeed rather evil. Sex shouldn’t be about fun. Less even about harnessing one’s attractiveness in order to gain status by sleeping around. Sex is about procreation. Children in civilized societies require parents which stick together; stable marriages require spousal loyalty. It’s very simple. Should women abort in order to save money (to spend in some frivolous crap), or in order to engage in casual sex without fear of consequences? Hell no. That’s messed up. The sort of woman who would rather undergo surgery to kill a fetus in order to ride the cock carousel should be tarred, feathered and shamed for years.

That’s one thing. But is abortion evil per se? Say you have a normal, decent family. They have a daughter, who’s 17 years old. She becomes attracted to some jock in the football team. Good looking alpha, dumb as a brick, a sociopathic asshole but all the girls like him. They sleep together and the girl gets pregnant. What should she do? In an ideal world the father would grab a shotgun, force the guy to marry, and they shall be happy ever after.

But this is not that world. The alpha jock is going to run as fast as he can. He won’t be there for the child. Even if, like often happens in Japan, you could get the guy to marry the girl, odds are they’ll divorce down the road, leaving a fatherless kid and an unhappy family. The right thing to do as a father, given the world we live on, is to grab the jock, punch him in the jaw, knock a bunch of teeth, and rush your daughter into the abortion clinic and do away with the fetus. As soon as you can; first trimester. Discipline your daughter as you see fit, and try to get her to forget the whole thing. Hopefully she’ll grow up, get some sense, and eventually marry some suitable man at a more suitable age. Say, 25. Then she can have babies.

I have a daughter. Many of you have daughters. Odds are she won’t be the sort of dumb bitch to get pregnant by some teenage alpha. But boys will be boys; and girls will be girls. Plenty of girls from good families end up fucking black drug dealers and getting pregnant. I don’t like abortions; I don’t like feminism. But you’re trying to tell me that a girl shouldn’t abort in that situation? Give me a fucking break.

The overwhelming majority of abortions being performed today are done to correct this sort of mistakes. And that is a good thing. You want to make a point of denying abortion because of “the sanctity of human life”. Fuck that, and fuck you. You wanna oppose the left; good for you. But choose something else. Roosh and his fellow “masculine” activists posted a video on how abortions are actually done. Gruesome stuff. Bloody baby parts all over the place. The whole procedure is pure evil. Should I show this to my daughter? Hell no. I’d rather keep the option to abort a stupidly conceived child, instead of imprinting her the picture of a baby torn apart.

And do you really wanna oppose the left here? You can’t win. Women are adamant in favor of abortion; and not because they are all rabid leftists. They instinctually understand that girls do stupid things, and abortion can help them fix it. If you forbid abortion tomorrow, girls won’t magically stop fucking the dumb jock or the black drug dealer. Of course women are for abortion. They don’t like killing babies. It’s gruesome stuff. Women like babies. Much more than men do. But women rather like having the chance to correct a stupid mistake they did because of a gina tingle they couldn’t control. Men in those situations are very much in favor of abortion too.

Making a political movement opposing such a thing which women instinctually favor only makes them entrench themselves and move farther to the left. Again, nobody likes abortion. But if you force leftist women to justify abortion, they will. The left has the upper hand in any PR battle, and see how they came cracking down with all their might with their “Pro-Choice” answer. The whole pro-choice rhetoric is evil, but what do you expect? Pro-Life doesn’t provide any nuance, why should the left provide any? By opposing the left in something they can’t possibly concede, you make them take the offensive. And when the left comes up with something, it always by definition spirals out of control. So we got pro-choice feminists arguing how Abortion, i.e. killing babies is awesome and inspiring.

No, abortion is gruesome, nasty business. It’s bad for you, it’s bad for everyone, but sometimes it’s necessary. A sane society recognized that, and chooses to taboo the topic and not talk about it, the same way you don’t talk about nasty and gruesome things in general. Abortion in Japan is illegal, but tolerated, practiced by young single women, prostitutes, or women having affairs. There is no political movement in favor, or against. Nobody talks about them, it’s a shameful act, which produces nothing but scorn when revealed, so people choose not to. For good reason. The local literature is full of women traumatized by the act, then leaving society in shame. That’s the sane way of depicting it. In Europe it used to be like that until American leftist filth was exported, now it’s a political point for leftists to use to humiliate the little conservatism left.

I’d rather people didn’t have to do this. I’d rather abortion didn’t exist. I’d rather we were all like the Mormons living in sane, decent communities, and nobody’s daughter got pregnant by dumb irresponsible jocks. But that’s not the world we live in. Men do stupid things for sex all the time; women also do stupid things, and get pregnant by evil men. If you wanna do politics, if you wanna oppose the government (which you probably shouldn’t), choose your battles wisely. Opposing abortion is just the wrong way to do it. Choose something else; there’s plenty of stuff.

EDIT: Abortion policy in Israel, as expected, is quite reasonable:

Abortion in Israel is legal under certain circumstances, with the approval of a committee for pregnancy termination. Approval for an abortion in Israel by a termination committee is given if the woman is unmarried, because of age (if the woman is under the age of 18 – the legal marriage age in Israel – or over the age 40), the pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.) or an incestuous relationship, birth defects, risk of health to the mother, and life of the mother

Advertisements

46 responses to “Abortion

  1. Pingback: Abortion | Neoreactive

  2. Jaskologist April 4, 2016 at 18:50

    You should submit this article to National Review. They love the “why we must not fight the left on this particular hill” genre.

  3. B April 4, 2016 at 19:44

    1) If “that’s not the world we live in” is your determining criterion for the right thing to do, then you don’t have principles beyond convenience.

    2) If “that’s not the world we live in” is a primary determinant of right vs. wrong for you, then what is the point of discussing “oughts”? Any “ought”, by definition, is either part of the world we live in, or not. If it is, then it’s a fact, no point in arguing about it. If not, then no point in arguing about it either.

    3) I can’t help but notice that the kind of people who would kill their unborn grandchild in order to keep their daughter on the desired path tend to raise the kind of daughters who hate them, sleep with jocks and black drug dealers to get even with them, and abandon them in their old age. You can fool anyone but your own kids, who always understand what is primary in your heart.

    4) If you want to raise kids who don’t have sex with drug dealers and high school jocks, or commit infanticide to avoid responsibility for their decisions, kids who will bring you the grandchildren you want and who will be loyal and honor you in your old age, the way to do that is to join a moral community and follow its principles wholeheartedly.

    5) NRx has turned into exactly this sort of perpetual motion machine where eggheads attempt to fool themselves that they can enjoy the fruits of a moral life without actually having any kind of real morality (meaning, a set of principles for which you sacrifice on a regular basis and are prepared to sacrifice any sort of convenience if push comes to shove.) Newsflash: it’s impossible in the long run. Life always calls your bluff, sooner or later.

    • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 02:56

      Abortion in Israel is legal under certain circumstances, with the approval of a committee for pregnancy termination. Approval for an abortion in Israel by a termination committee is given if the woman is unmarried, because of age (if the woman is under the age of 18 – the legal marriage age in Israel – or over the age 40), the pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.) or an incestuous relationship, birth defects, risk of health to the mother, and life of the mother.[1]

      Your country agrees with me. Great policy.

      • B April 5, 2016 at 05:37

        If you are using the laws and actions of the secular Israeli govt as some sort of moral reference point, you have a big problem.

        • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 06:52

          I’d be rather content with secular Israeli birthrates.

          • B April 5, 2016 at 10:51

            This deserves a deeper look.

            Secular Israeli birthrates are an epiphenomenon of religious Israeli birthrates.

            A “secular” woman sees her religious neighbors, co-workers, classmates, friends,cousins, sisters, with their children, and she says to herself, “I want that.”

            For the Israeli population which is really, truly secular, meaning, they do not have any religious friends or relatives, no interest in Judaism, birthrates are Singaporean.

            This is why NRx is Faustian. “If to the moment I shall ever say: “ah, linger on, thou art so fair!”” By definition, the moment can not stop.

            In Judaism we have the concept that you can’t stay in one place; you are either ascending or descending. Our “secular” population is ascending:

            http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Israeli-Jews-becoming-more-religious-poll-finds

            Even the post-Soviet part of it:

            http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210133#.VwOIQvl97RY

            I mean, the bastions of secular, anti-Jewish socialism were the kibbutzim. They used to send new immigrants from North Africa, Yemen, etc. there, to break them of their superstitious practices. To give you an idea, in the 50s, my neighbor’s father was noticed blessing the Shabbat by his neighbors in the kibbutz. The weekly newsletter was dedicated to mocking him: “let’s buy Haim a shtreimel!” (one of those big funny fur hats).

            Today, practically each kibbutz has a synagogue, residents with kippot, etc.:

            http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210269#.VwOIwPl97RY

            http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133093#.VwOIy_l97RY

            Israel’s secular birthrate is part of the same exact trend.

            • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 11:49

              I rather resent being called NRx when I was never part with whatever Twitter rebranding has been going on. The self-styled NRx crowd is quite probably against abortion for all I know.

              Hey, look, I’d rather like having the same demographic trends as Israel. If I was surrounded by orthodox people I’d convert sooner rather than later.

              But I don’t, what I have is a hedonistic culture around me, which I dislike. And the way to deal with that is to go quietist, not to pick a fight on singular issues, least of all abortion; which is one of the few defense mechanism that a sane person has against the mainstream culture. If my daughter converted at 17 and decided to have religious babies, I wouldn’t have her abort. But as long as the odds are she gets knocked up by a dumb jock and not a good orthodox kid, I reserve my right to choose my grandchildren, by force if necessary.

              • B April 5, 2016 at 14:20

                The quietist strategy is a nonstarter.

                Abortion is not a defense against the mainstream culture but a capitulation to it.

                If you don’t want your daughter spreading her legs before marriage, making it clear that abortion is one of the many things which “we do not do” is the way to go. But you need a community to be successful at any of this. Otherwise, your line will die out with office people who “vaguely seem like they may disagree with the party line.”

  4. Laguna Beach Fogey April 4, 2016 at 19:57

    Yeah, punish the alpha jock, but let your whore of a daughter “correct” her “mistake” without consequences. Typical nonsense. If you don’t want abortion, then control your women.

    • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 03:37

      Oh, she’d face consequences. But I won’t be burdened by a bastard.

      I’d love to control my women, but until you guys listen to me and convert to Islam, I gotta make bricks with the available clay.

  5. R7 Rocket April 4, 2016 at 20:07

    Trump doesn’t really care about the abortion issue.

  6. Rollory April 4, 2016 at 20:42

    I’m gonna go against the current here and say thanks for writing this. It’s pure common sense, of the sort that most people don’t or won’t articulate, but which governs their real-world behavior all the same.

    I would also claim that in the case of a Down syndrome or Zika microcephalic or otherwise permanently and inherently crippled fetus, abortion is absolutely less bad than any other option. Guaranteeing that those children who are born are whole and healthy is in no way evil.

    I’d also claim that in the case of rape, abortion is a moral requirement.

    • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 02:59

      Thanks. Indeed I’d join any church that was for basic eugenics.

    • infowarrior1 April 10, 2016 at 02:14

      I think CRISPR will enable the fetus to not be aborted in the 1st place. Hence solving the moral dilemma

      • Erebus April 21, 2016 at 05:36

        CRISPR will only work for genetic diseases with very clear causative factors. Where infectuous diseases like Zika are concerned, it will not help. (Especially when the disease is so poorly understood. It was just “confirmed” last week that the disease causes microcephaly, and the molecular mechanisms involved are not presently known.)

        Down syndrome, which is a gross chromosomal abnormality, would be very difficult to correct. Probably impossible in the near future. For what it’s worth, which is not much, PGD can already prevent it. (Many of the magical qualities people associate with CRISPR are already available via PGD.)

        CRISPR is best-suited to correct single-gene defects, like for instance those that result in diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, and Huntington’s disease. It might be possible to eradicate those diseases in the near future… Perhaps just as soon as the regulators allow it. I’d go so far as to say that single-gene defects are already fully curable, and that the only thing holding us back is regulatory inertia — cowardice.

  7. Rollory April 4, 2016 at 20:48

    Jaskologist: you’ve completely missed the point of his bringing up Moldbug. It’s not that one should or should not fight on a given hill. It’s that whenever the right DOES make a fight of this nature, with these tactics, on any hill whatsoever, it empowers the left.

    The right way to stop abortion – to make it not happen and not be necessary – is one family at a time; parents raising their own daughters responsibly and sensibly. That is a cultural and societal pattern, not achievable by imposition of law from outside. Force of law to change people’s behavior only works when pushing to the left. This exact same battle was already fought nearly two thousand years ago in Rome, with the government actually attempting to implement rightist and natalist policies, and was lost even more decisively than it’s being lost now.

  8. Jack April 4, 2016 at 21:57

    What if she’s pregnant from a decent boy? Come on, isn’t it more moral to give away the child for adoption rather than slice it to pieces? Yeah, if she’s raped by a nigger from tha hood, or even just knocked up by a dumbass jock, then go ahead, destroy the spawn as you would destroy its progenitor. In fact, even if she’s raped by a gangsta, it could be biologically more viable to give the child away for adoption instead of butchering it in the womb.

    • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 02:58

      The moral thing to do is not to reproduce those stupid genes.

      • chris April 5, 2016 at 15:50

        How is it stupid for a woman to have a child when young? Sounds incredibly adaptive to me. Maximises total number of offspring.

        • Anonymous April 6, 2016 at 07:52

          Yeah. “25” is stupidly late to start reproducing. You should marry off your daughter at 16 (or whatever the legal marriage age is at your locale) to some guy ten years her senior with a stable job.

          • spandrell April 6, 2016 at 08:28

            Served Western Civilization right during its apogee. If you wanna have old Chinese style mating patterns dont be surprised if you end up like China.

  9. Pingback: Abortion | Reaction Times

  10. AntiDem April 5, 2016 at 06:10

    “And do you really wanna oppose the left here?”

    Yup. Frankly, I’m sick and fucking tired of the countersignaling against pro-life that seems to be fashionable amongst certain segments of the edgy right these days. Murdering babies is evil, and should be illegal, with extreme penalties for violating the law. Full stop. If we can’t make that stand, we’re worthless. And no, I have no sympathy for the “Murder is wrong… unless you really gotta” mentality. That’s Tony Soprano morals. And while we’re on the subject of of morality, holding the abortion policies of the Jewish state as a model for us to emulate… as leftists like to say: “No… just no”.

    Look, I don’t give a shit about what can practically be accomplished under the current system. If I cared about that, I’d still be listening to Glenn Beck and voting for the likes of Bob Dole (which I did, back in 1996 – what a waste of a nice Tuesday morning in November that was!). What can the right accomplish under the current system? Getting its ass kicked. It can be as “reasonable” as it likes, but it won’t matter. That’s why the current system has to go. It’s also why I stopped caring about saying things that will get 51% of the boobuses to vote for my team. To misquote Christopher Hitchens, I’m not running for anything, so I don’t have to pretend to have any respect for foolish, hypocritical, or evil ideas when I don’t.

    The entire point of leaving behind mainstream conservatism and becoming AntiDem is so I can say “Fiat justitia ruat caelum”. Trump’s job is to get elected, so he’ll say whatever he has to say to make that happen. My job is to tell the truth, no matter what.

    • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 08:23

      There is no “we” here. There is no team. I’m not arguing about hiding one’s position in order to gain elections. I’m saying forbidding abortion is a stupid policy by itself; and making a political point of abortion has cultural ramifications which make it harder to push more reasonable policies in other areas.

      “Murdering babies is evil” is the sort of maximalist position that makes people say that aborting retarded or deformed babies is evil. You know what’s evil? Producing dumb, disabled, and just generally useless babies, while the best genes out there do not reproduce. The only reason your country still barely functions is that stupid people abort hundreds of thousands of babies every year. Forbidding abortion will only accelerate your transformation into North Brazil.

      The Jewish state is one of the few states out there which takes an interest in its own people. That you can’t make an argument against it and just react like a woman shows that you have no clue.

      • AntiDem April 5, 2016 at 18:28

        >“Murdering babies is evil” is the sort of maximalist position that makes people say that aborting retarded or deformed babies is evil.

        That’s because it *is* evil. Some moral questions require subtle and nuanced thinking. Some do not, and in those cases, moral relativism is evil’s foot in the door. This is one of those cases. Either abortion is murder, or it isn’t. If it is, then nothing justifies it except a direct and certain threat to the life of the mother, in which case one life is balanced against another – one will live, one will die, and the only choice is who. But if it is not, then abort away – one million a year, ten million a year, a billion a year, it matters not, and no more thought should be given to it than would be given to trimming a fingernail. Any other position – any half-measure, any “legal but rare”, any “in this case but not in that case” is bullshit both on a moral and a rational level. Again, “Don’t commit murder… unless you really gotta” is Tony Soprano morality, and I have no use for it.

        • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 18:55

          I hope your wishes come true and your county has a black baby boom where you get flooded with baby Trayvons and Latishas. And Down syndrome kids. Lots of those too.

          But hey, at least you won’t be evil! Mmm that logic sounds familiar.

          • Irving April 5, 2016 at 22:33

            Antidem,

            Those of us who oppose abortion, and yet who are also aware of HBD, often try and reconcile these more or less incompatible beliefs by saying something like “Yeah, abortion is wrong, full stop, but the problem of dysgenics can solve itself, without recourse to abortion, if we just go back to what was done in the pre-welfare state days, and just left the sluts and their bastards starve to death, etc., etc.”.

            The reality is that until we are finally in a position to really go back to the pre-welfare state days, and it is unclear if we’ll ever be able to go back (at least not as a matter of deliberate policy; whether we’ll be forced to go back due to economic collapse is another question), something has got to be done to at least mitigate the consequences of dysgenic birth rates. And, in practice, there’s no other way to achieve this than through some combination of cheap or free birth control and abortion.

            Spandrell is right: the reason why America has not become some gigantic North Brazil is because Planned Parenthood is opening up shop in every low-income area in the country, everywhere from the black inner cities (i.e. Chicago) to the out-of-the-way rural areas inhabited primarily by poor whites (i.e. West Virginia), and is cheaply and safely butchering the bastard spawn of hundreds of thousands of low-IQ sluts per year. It is a gruesome business, but America has no doubt benefited from it: the black and poor white birth rates are currently well below replacement-level and so is, I think, that of Hispanics, and if it isn’t it soon will be. Teen pregnancy has been dropping for about two decades, too, and it seems obvious that this isn’t due to teenagers being more responsible about sex than they were two decades ago; it is clear that they are simply aborting their children much more often today than they did two decades ago.

    • Jack April 5, 2016 at 16:28

      >And no, I have no sympathy for the “Murder is wrong… unless you really gotta” mentality.

      There are an awful lot of similarities between the “all abortion is murder” crowd and the “all meat is murder” folks. Basically, both radical anti-abortionists and vegans take compassion to an unhealthy — often literally at that — extreme, take an absolutist stance about an issue that most normal people (those who aren’t sperglords) understand is complex and has varying shades of grey. The latter proclivity transform you to a testosterone deprived fatso weakling, the former results in a house full of mulatto niglets (each of whom will grow up to become POTUS, no doubt) who’ll bullycide your biological children and any White grandchildren you may have.

      I have already voiced my issue with Spandrell’s reasoning that abortion should be permitted because Muh Career, but forbidding it under any and all circumstances is retarded. Is masturbation degenerate? Yeah, of course, but most mentally-stable well-adjusted people accept it as a societal inevitability….don’t see why abortion is any different.

      Not to go full Darwinfag, but as long as you manage to reproduce high-quality genes (no quadroon NRO pundits or Elliot Rodgers down the line) at above replacement level, it doesn’t matter if you occasionally suffer the minor immorality…….if your daughter is leaking with jigaboo bukkake, it’s time to consider “murdering” her parasitic fetus, daddy. And then you should slap her two ears simultaneously (it’s painful) for being a dirty harlot. The alternative — cucking your bloodline out of existence because Niglet-Fetus Lives Matter — is beyond absurd.

      • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 16:49

        Damn right.

        But come on, “Darwinfag”? Show some respect for the old man.

      • AntiDem April 5, 2016 at 18:32

        >”There are an awful lot of similarities between the “all abortion is murder” crowd and the “all meat is murder” folks.”

        Horseshit. Is there anybody in the world who goes around saying that meat is murder under some circumstances, but not under others? Who says “Meat is murder… unless you really gotta”? Also, this “if you change just one word” analogy is shit-tier thinking. If I use the word “orphans” instead of “eggs”, then I beat two orphans every morning when I make my breakfast. So fucking what?

        • Jack April 6, 2016 at 08:51

          >Horseshit. Is there anybody in the world who goes around saying that meat is murder under some circumstances, but not under others? Who says “Meat is murder… unless you really gotta”?

          You do realize this actually proves my point re the fanaticism of both groups? Furthermore, pretty sure some vaggies would accept transgressing the “meat is murder” dictum if, say, one is stuck on a lone island and has to consume some meat to survive – which goes to show that even the vaggies have more sense than the “abortion is always murder” crowd.

          >Also, this “if you change just one word” analogy is shit-tier thinking. If I use the word “orphans” instead of “eggs”, then I beat two orphans every morning when I make my breakfast. So fucking what?

          Lol wut? It’s not a semantic argument here, the analogy is very straightforward: some people claim that killing a fetus should be always forbidden, some people contend that killing an animal is always immoral.

          It’s very ironic that the people who whine that “it’s totally not the same!!!!!11!!!” are either anti-abortion fundies — very often creationists, btw — or pozzed pro-choice low-T shitlibs. In fact it’s very much the same. And I’m saying this as one who is against abortion in some circumstances and who would like it if science discovers a humane alternative to meat (not tofu, ewwww).

        • Rollory April 7, 2016 at 05:52

          Not murder, but certainly meat means killing a creature that can think to a certain extent. Anybody who’s raised animals in a farm environment knows that. You have pets? Cat, dog? Pigs are smarter. Do you eat bacon? Cows can be pretty perceptive too. Even chickens have personalities if you get to know them.

          And I eat ’em all just the same. I feel a bit bad about it if I let myself think about it, but then I get over it and have a good meal. Vegetarians don’t. They can not get past the fact of killing a creature that can think and feel emotions and look at them with sorrowful eyes. They actively harm themselves as a result, by restricting themselves to a diet that human biology isn’t suited for.

          “No abortion ever” produces a similar result, it actively degrades the population and civilization practicing it. It may have been suitable in an environment with already high child mortality, but not in the modern situation.

  11. Azn April 5, 2016 at 07:30

    Eminently sensible. Some things are necessary evils in certain contexts. The problem is, too many people refuse to accept that we live in a gray world, and insist on black and white.

    No, actually, the problem is that most people don’t really think, they are just driven to propagate whichever belief system has been imprinted onto them.

  12. chris April 5, 2016 at 15:27

    “But this is not that world. The alpha jock is going to run as fast as he can. He won’t be there for the child. Even if, like often happens in Japan, you could get the guy to marry the girl, odds are they’ll divorce down the road, leaving a fatherless kid and an unhappy family. The right thing to do as a father, given the world we live on, is to grab the jock, punch him in the jaw, knock a bunch of teeth, and rush your daughter into the abortion clinic and do away with the fetus. As soon as you can; first trimester. Discipline your daughter as you see fit, and try to get her to forget the whole thing. Hopefully she’ll grow up, get some sense, and eventually marry some suitable man at a more suitable age. Say, 25. Then she can have babies.”

    So your prescription is an alpha fux beta bux strategy? Do you think if this strategy became the norm that men would bother becoming dutiful betas? Or might they instead aim to become that dumb as a brick jock who got to fuck the girl in her prime and then run off? I know what I would choose, and it ain’t marrying the 25 year old girl who put out for free to Chads when she was in her nubile prime.

    • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 16:13

      You don’t become a dumb as a brick jock. You either are, or you aren’t.

      I wish I lived in a society where dumb as a brick jocks could be beaten silly every time they fucked a girl and ran away, and so there were few of them. But I don’t. There are lots of them, and girls can and do have sex with them without paternal permission.

      Come back when you’re married and have daughters and actually have a clue about how life works.

      • chris April 5, 2016 at 18:49

        “You don’t become a dumb as a brick jock. You either are, or you aren’t.”

        Not true. Steroids make you the jock. Stimulants like methamphetamine or cocaine can make you the impulsive extroverted brute. All can be obtained cheaply. Much more cheaply than going to medical, law or engineering school to become a dutiful provider. And can turn any retiring nerd into a dumb as brick jock.

        • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 18:52

          If it were so easy people wouldn’t pay thousands of dollars for PUA seminars. 4chan wouldn’t exist.

          I’ve seen my share of cokeheads and they get impulsive for a while, but they don’t become attractive just like that.

          • chris April 5, 2016 at 19:18

            “If it were so easy people wouldn’t pay thousands of dollars for PUA seminars. 4chan wouldn’t exist.”

            They pay thousands of dollars because they want to stay themselves but be attractive. They want to follow societies rules, rather than break them. Our society tells men to be good men, clever men, productive men. So they strive to achieve that. But they also want to be attractive to women so they try to achieve that as well. They essentially want to become sexy nerds.

            Still, it is far easier to just become that sexy dumb as brick jock. Cost of steroids <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< cost of medical school.

            "I’ve seen my share of cokeheads and they get impulsive for a while, but they don’t become attractive just like that."

            Performing well in the mating lek that is the nightclub or bar or house party, only takes a few hours at a time. And besides, do those drugs for long enough and you essentially dull your brain enough to the point where they aren't even necessary anymore. You arrive at a personality similar to that of Russell Brand, permanently scatter-brained.

            • spandrell April 5, 2016 at 19:42

              You talking from experience? What stops everyone from doing it? The sexual market is what it is, and it has been like this for decades.

              At any rate nerds aren’t a majority of the population, let alone sexy nerds.

              • chris April 5, 2016 at 20:15

                “You talking from experience?”

                To an extent yes.

                ” What stops everyone from doing it?”

                I would say some combination of cultural momentum keeping people in line. Traditions die hard. As well as probably some genetic component to being the kind of person who did well under such previous cultural traditions. In the past being a Beta is what made you successful in the sexual market because you had a culture that made it the successful strategy. Not so much now.

                “The sexual market is what it is, and it has been like this for decades.”

                Is single motherhood increasing? Is PUA a recent emerging cultural phenomenon? Are cads increasing? Is the age of marriage increasing? Will those same good husband material men be around to marry those older and older women? Does each cohort of men re-invent the wheel when it comes to cultural knowledge, or do they look back at the previous generation and say, “Hey, those men were duped” ?

                Anyway, I’m setting myself up nicely. I’ve just finished my law degree in my country and will hopefully be setting myself up with a part-time legal gig. Meanwhile I am completing my engineering degree so that I will have options to move to other countries.

                If my theory is incorrect, and being a dutiful provider with a prestigious career is a winning strategy, well then I can make a good life for myself as a lawyer. If, however my theory is correct, and being a beta in the West is a recipe for sexual disenfranchisement, well then my engineering degree will afford me the opportunity to hit eject and move to more Patriarchal societies where the culture is set up so that Betas are the sexual winners rather than Cads/dumb as brick jocks. I’m thinking Eastern Europe. Possibly Ukraine, Belarus or Russia.

              • B April 6, 2016 at 09:00

                >Patriarchal societies where the culture is set up so that Betas are the sexual winners rather than Cads/dumb as brick jocks. I’m thinking Eastern Europe. Possibly Ukraine, Belarus or Russia.

                Ahahahahaaha

                Boy, you’ve got no clue.

              • Rollory April 7, 2016 at 05:56

                Chris: you do not want to move to Ukraine. Yes the women are beautiful. That’s about its only good point.

                At the very least, do some tourist trips there first.

  13. gilbertodorneles April 6, 2016 at 02:22

    To what level does opposition to abortion increase right-wing Birthrate? Is it high enough to compensate the average dysgenic effect?

  14. Rhetocrates April 14, 2016 at 18:36

    In our ideal society, as you’ve already noted, we’d lynch cuckolds.

    In our current society, adoption clinics and foster homes are a “perfectly fine” substitute for abortion. Which I would use in a heartbeat if my daughter got pregnant by some asshole whom I thought it better not to force her to marry.

  15. Howard J. Harrison April 17, 2016 at 21:56

    It’s too bad that such conversations cannot be quieter and more rational, but that would be pathetic white knighting, no? As I said, too bad.

    Spandrell is right. Sorry, AntiDem, but he is.

    It is true that abortion is *malum in se,* evil in itself. The evil is not circumstantial; it is absolute. But, AntiDem, you have not thought this all the way through. The principle of Subsidiarity obtains. Also, there exist other evils.

    It is true that Spandrell’s argument does not hinge on Subsidiarity. Mine would, by he has another point to make, and his is valid, too. The foreseeable consequences of banning abortion, in the present stage of civilizational decline, are unbearable.

    I also agree with Spandrell that the anti-abortion effort is a fight one cannot win. If you believe that the West might voluntarily give abortion up, you believe something I do not.

    Only two of my sons have so far reached puberty, but I have daughters, as well. I cannot bring myself to talk in detail here, with you, of hypotheticals concerning my daughters; but I am aware that we live in the real world whether I like it or not. Probably, within my own family, I would reluctantly side with AntiDem — maybe because I am too weak to do the right thing. But with pregnant women unrelated to me who choose to abort, especially pregnant women who belong, or whose unborn babies belong, to the races which are so rapidly displacing my race, Subsidiarity obtains.

    I would not interfere.

    Brazil North, indeed.

    AntiDem, do not ignore the Brazil North point. Brazil North will be the death of us all. My children and yours are going to have to live with (or die by) its consequences. This matters, a great deal. It is evil, too.

Please comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s