Category: abortion

Against Casey and MacDonald

This needs to be addressed.
An imbecilic and stupid post by another of Counter-Currents’ horrendous new crop of writers.So how should white advocates view abortion and euthanasia? At the very least, with a heavy dose of skepticism. Ideally, we would view them as Hippocrates viewed them, as an insult to life and to holiness. Our people are precious “from cradle to grave,” as the Catholics say.Should we then be working to outlaw abortion and euthanasia? Perhaps. Such affronts to holiness will likely be unthinkable in a white ethnostate.Thus, people dying in agonizing pain, people whose bodies are wrecked to the point that daily life is pointless and holds no meaning for them, people slowly and horribly dying of incurable diseases, people desperate for an end to their pain and suffering, must be kept alive because pathetic religious freaks have to impose their values of “holiness” on the rest of us.
We can give dogs and cats relief from suffering, but we force people to endure a living hell so Jesus freaks can feel good about themselves.  How despicable, how pompous, how deluded in the extremity of narcissism.  Excuse me, you stupid yeastbucket, you ignorant hole, who are you do tell me or anyone else what to do with our lives?  
Women have no business being medical doctors, a profession best left to the adults in the room – men.

Pathetic hand-waving:

MacDonald’s reply:  Again, as noted, I have no quarrel with the idea that the Indo-Europeans were an elite dominating a native indigenous population. My point was that Mycenaean civilization was an Indo-European culture. There is no real evidence for that.And my comment emphasized increasing I-E genetic contribution over time, suggesting selection for I-E genes. Really – now get this:The most recent samples studied by Mathieson et al. date from 1100 BC, and the most recent samples studied by Lazaridis et al. date from around 1200 BC—toward the end of Mycenaean civilization. Thus the data do not shed much light on the genetic constitution of classical Greece—the flowering of classical Greek culture dated to the fourth and fifth centuries BC that epitomized so much of what we think of as Western culture. This is certainly time enough for selection or incursion of steppe-derived genes, but as yet there are no genetic studies I am aware of for this later period. Doubly mendacious.  First, because there are not (currently) genetic samples from every era of Greek history, particularly “the flowering of classical Greek culture dated to the fourth and fifth centuries BC that epitomized so much of what we think of as Western culture” then MacDonald is free to “posit” and “suggest” and assert “reasonable” comments about his theories in the absence of any real evidence whatsoever.
Second, above he says “And my comment emphasized increasing I-E genetic contribution over time, suggesting selection for I-E genes” but now it is “the data do not shed much light on the genetic constitution of classical Greece…there are no genetic studies I am aware of for this later period.”
There’s no genetic evidence for the period, which allows him to “posit” whatever he wishes, but, at the same time, there is evidence of “increasing I-E genetic contribution over time, suggesting selection for I-E genes.”  What evidence?  I thought you just said there was no evidence?  All you have now are the previously mentioned Ancient Greek samples as well as modern Greeks, who the HBD Nordicists consider to be cringing subhumans.  So, where’s the evidence for in between those population end points?Further, there continues to be uncertainty regarding the causes of violent collapse of Mycenaean civilization inaugurating the Greek “Dark Age” (~1200BC–~750BC) of “isolation, introversion, and instability” (Hall, 2013, 82). Well, yes, we can “posit” that the Herrenvolk wrecked the Mycenaean civilization and caused a Dark Age the same as they did to the Western Roman Empire…and what their SJW descendants are doing to the West today.More importantly for present purposes is the identity of the people who later formed classical Greek culture. There is a long history of proposing a “Dorian invasion” from the north which altered spoken dialects from Achaean to Dorian as well as aspects of culture (e.g., knowledge of ironworking and a shift to individualized burial practices (Hall, 2013, p. 70; Nagy, 2019), the latter suggesting a more individualist culture. First, details about  the Dorian invasion are questionable, as regards real scholarship.
Second, even if we “posit” a Dorian invasion as MacDonald prefers, the Athenians considered themselves Ionian, not Dorian, and some scholars – to the extent that they take the Dorian hypotheses seriously – explain the Athenian-Spartan conflict as an ethnic one.  The “flowering” of Greek culture was more Athenian than Spartan, wasn’t it?T his began as a literary tradition and persisted for nine centuries, down to the first century AD and remains the “most economical hypothesis,” although the Dorian invasion hypothesis purporting to explain it remains unproven (Hall, 2013, p. 68). Remains unproven!  Well, yes, but that doesn’t stop some from invoking a Kempite Dorian Herrenvolk influx to “posit” and “suggest” “reasonable” explanations, does it?As noted, genetic data on the people responsible for classical Greek civilization are lacking; however, it is reasonable to posit a shift toward increased steppe contribution, not only during the Mycenaean period (Mathieson et al., 2018), but continuing thereafter given that genetic changes may occur quite quickly (Cochran & Harpending, 2010).“Reasonable to posit” – those weasel words again.  “Genetic data on the people responsible for classical Greek civilization are lacking” – but he’ll make conclusions regardless, or “posit” conclusions.  Note also how MacDonald’s more conciliatory and equivocal tone differs here in this review response differs from the more dogmatically HBD tone of self-congratulatory certainty at The Occidental Observer when writing on these issues, mirrored by the sweaty amen corner commentariot, who, like with all personality cults centered on gurus (like Jewish movements, eh?), personally attack critics (“Meisenberg is a mendacious Jew”) – attacks that do not receive any rebuke from MacDonald himself.
Further, do I really need to point out that the fact that “genetic changes may occur quite quickly” does not mean that they will occur or, more to the point, in this case did occur in the manner asserted by MacDonald?  The work of Cochran and Harpending is here almost irrelevant in the absence of evidence of the asserted changes.
Indeed, one can use that paradigm to “posit” and “suggest” all sorts of “reasonable” genetic selection. Maybe individualist farmer genes were quickly selected for?  Maybe those last century has seen a “rapid genetic change” in favor of hysterically SJW collectivist xenophilic egalitarianism among NW Europeans?  Who knows?  We can all “posit” anything and cherry pick reasons why it is “reasonable.”
Now, there is of course genetic evidence for a relatively small minority influx of steppe ancestry into ancient Southern Europe, overlaying the majority farmer ancestry. One can find remnants of some steppe ancestry in Southern European areas today. That does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the ancestry of the peoples of the Classical Civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome was of farmer derivation.
MacDonald has a clear agenda of disregarding the contribution of farmer ancestry to European history and civilization, privileging instead hunter gatherer and steppe ancestries.  
It seems more “reasonable” to “posit” that the data “suggest” that the majority ancestry had the largest effect; further, civilization did not begin in the Mediterranean basin until the hunter gatherers were predominantly displaced by the farmers.
And, by the way, once again I note the Y axis here.

Spencer, Abortion, and Sallis

Thoughts on a video.

Some notes on this:

First, I believe Spencer has a bright future as a spokesman and representative of the Far-Right and, perhaps one day, can ride the tide of right-wing populism to elected office of some type.  But, he is eventually going to need to cut ties with the failed stupidity of Alt Right, Inc. – both the Alt Right “movement” as well as the AltRight.com flotsam and jetsam. Perhaps as he gets older, and reflects back on recent events (including being “thrown under the bus” over “Hailgate” by Alt Right ad Alt Wrong figures), he’ll see the folly in his current path.  A natural evolution of his position would be a pan-European materialist futurism, but articulated in a down-to-earth and Americanized fashion.

I agree with his points about abortion and contraception, some of which overlaps with material on Counter-Currents (by Le Brun I believe).  Is abortion the killing of human beings (or at least of hominids)?  Yes it is.  But so what?  So is capital punishment, so is warfare, so is policing.  So? Huge numbers of high-quality Germans were killed in WWII Allied bombing raids, and I’m supposed to get all worked up over future gangbangers and carjackers being aborted?  I think not.

I think Spencer is going to be disappointed by Lahren, but we’ll see.

While I agree with Spencer on abortion, I do not support Lahren’s feminist “it are the women’s bodies” argument.  Yes, it is the woman’s womb, but the fetus is a shared resource, genetically half the father’s (and not even getting into extended family and ethnic interests).  I’m talking here purely objectively – from a subjective racial standpoint, yes, let’s abort more Blacks and Hispanics and if feminist arguments get that job done, fine, but from a purely objective argument (and one which subjectively can help inform the broader issue of White men’s rights), there is a problem here.

If the father is going to be on the hook for child support if the infant is born, then he sure as hell has the right to participate, as an equal partner, in decisions of abortion (or contraception for that matter). The fetus is not the woman’s to decide what to do with as her estrogenic whims lead her.  Now, some would say – “What if the father wants the child and the mother wants to abort.  Will she be forced to carry it to term?”

To which I say – she should be given a choice.  Either have the child and give it to the father, or have the abortion and pay reparations to the father, a regular payment equal to whatever the father’s child support would have been otherwise.  If the father was to be on the hook for $X per month, then that’s what the woman would have to pay the man in the scenario described above.  Cue the feminist shrieks of outrage.

Spencer is right about the “Deep Cuck” commitment to policing the conservative movement and enforcing conservative (cuckservative) dogma. What I would like to see next is Spencer – or someone else other than me – speak out against the racialist “movement” and its own fossilized dogma and its tendency to police itself (*).

* Don’t kid yourself that the ignoring/opposition to this blog is all about my “crazy, erratic behavior” or “excessive negativism” and that’s for two reasons.  The lesser reason is that the “craziness” is/was not only obviously tongue-in-cheek but I’m on record of openly stating as such.  The more fundamental reason – and this gets to the heart of the “negativism” – is that it puts the cart before the horse, it reverses cause and effect.  It’s not that the “movement” is hostile to my message because my message has always been “negative,” but rather that the message has become increasingly negative because the “movement” – or at least important precincts thereof – have always been hostile to both the message and the messenger. I’ve been involved in this activity in one form or another for over 20 years. Those who remember the early 2000s can remember my work with Legion Europa, Amren, TOQ, etc.  And then with later with MR (when it was more sane). Was that work – presented sans “craziness” and “negativism” – generally well received?  No it was not.  Did it have any lasting impact?  No it did not. Was anyone really paying attention?  No, not that I could see. Then, to say the current opposition is a reasonable response to my “grumpiness” is disingenuous.