Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 11, 2020

Open Thread 2020-97

News & views ...

Posted by b on December 11, 2020 at 17:32 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

@ 76 uncle ungsten,

thanks for the incredible eye opening links.

You obviously live in Australia. However I don't think the ALOR could be described as 'neo nazi.' The loathsome Lang Hancock did not 'inaugrate' this group.

I agree the christian zionist right are a maliginant influence on the LNP government. Not just the pentecostals.

Here is the big Anglo problem, again:

https://www.unz.com/article/mark-leibler-powerbroker-for-australias-jewish-plutocracy/

Posted by: Paul | Dec 13 2020 10:27 utc | 101

@ Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 6:27 utc | 98

Funny how I've never seen the anti-abortion squad complaining about the programs of mass-sterilization in Africa and China's One Child Policy. On the contrary, they were hailed as the solution to "overpopulation" (of non-Christian overpopulation, that is).

But seriously, the anti-abortion struggle already is a lost battle to Christianity. The technology already exists and is cheap enough. Demand already is large enough. Even if illegal, rich women will just travel to a nation where it is and do it, while poor women will continue to do it clandestinely or die attempting it.

Data from countries where abortion already is legal don't point to the apocalyptic scenario the anti-abortion squad claims will happen: they are still insignificant overall, and do not harm fertility rates on a macroeconomic level of a nation. The most realistic scenario is that only women who are really desperate will seek for an abortion (which is a vestigial percentage of the population) - most will continue to use the pills and other (much cheaper and much healthier than an abortion) contraceptive methods correctly and only have their children when they want to.

Posted by: vk | Dec 13 2020 16:36 utc | 102

Karlofi @80
I would love to read your masters thesis about where China's industrialization capital came from. As a good Marxist, this is exactly the kind of material data one needs to realistically evaluate whether China is socialist. I have been generally convinced that it IS by Michael Roberts's blog, thenextrecession.org (??), but it's an important issue re how one sees the world.

Posted by: SinFronteras | Dec 13 2020 16:49 utc | 103

@106 vk

This is a weak argument.

As I am no fan of R2P foreign policy, it follows that the only recourse for a Christian country wrt the policy of abortion abroad is to either boycott trade with this country until this policy is changed or pray over it.

Secondly, the goal is to end state subsidy of the policy of abortion. No federal government money period. In a prior post I mentioned that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade would allow states to identify themselves as Christian-centered or, if still allowing abortion, as states ruled by technocrats who have no qualms with its culture of death and the denial of life.

The point is to not imprison women who engage in aborting their children but to remove public funding from the practice and stripping licensing from doctors who do not follow the Hippocratic Oath.

In prior posts I have let my thoughts on vaccination be known. And I am certainly no fan of practicing vaccines and sterilization abroad in African countries where guinea pig trials go unseen and unpunished. I realize posters over at unz routinely call for culling the black population. This is an abhorrent appeal.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 18:41 utc | 104

@ Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 18:41 utc | 109

But by persecuting doctors (with the State!) doing abortions, you're violating their freedom of enterprise. If there's demand, it should always be met by supply, as per free market moral values. That's freedom.

Like I said, your proposal won't stop abortions. They'll continue to be done. The only difference is that they will happen illegally (or in countries where it is legal).

Posted by: vk | Dec 13 2020 18:49 utc | 105

@110 vk

I am not interested in controlling other countries. Let them go to hell.

No, the denial of abortion is not restricting the freedom or liberty of the woman.

It is protecting the liberty and freedom of the innocent, unique life she is carrying.

Liberty in the western sense means not restricting the liberties of another, within reason of course. Traffic lights are a common good. Abortion is not.

So long as the state can express itself in its worldview, morals, religion, and culture, this is essential to history as understood by Hegel.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 20:03 utc | 106

Unwanted children are a moral evil, a stain on the society that promotes their birth.

To say that someone has life means to say they can breathe, eat, drink. If the preservation of their life means compulsory life support, then everyone should be put on a ventilator and nasogastric tube, until they have been convicted of a crime and the world knows they are not "innocent." Nobody wants to pay for this, especially not conservatives.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Dec 13 2020 20:40 utc | 107

@ Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 20:03 utc | 111

Doesn't change the fact that doctors invest their money in abortion clinics and start a business from demand that is already there. That's freedom of enterprise, the highest - the only, depending on the liberal intellectual you quote - form of freedom, which is above even of life itself. Your proposal is anti-freedom, therefore graver than anti-life, according to the classical liberal ideology - of which the founding fathers were followers. And since you're against the very ideal that founded your own country, that also makes you a traitor to the nation, an anti-American.

Posted by: vk | Dec 13 2020 21:19 utc | 108

@ NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 20:03 utc | 111

I am not interested in controlling other countries. Let them go to hell.

Such a fine and morally upstanding charachter you are sir, again and again.

It is protecting the liberty and freedom of the innocent, unique life she is carrying.

Except when the "innocent, unique life" is brown and located in an oil-rich region of the earth that you and your average compatriots couldn't pinpoint on a map if their innocent, unique life depended on it. Then it's okay. Kill them ragheads for baby jeebus. Drone the weddings, drone the funerals, drone the hospitals. Go go go Muricah!!

Last time when I responded to you and qualified you as a cretinous fascist, you took exception to the "fascist" epithet. Maybe I should take the hint and in the future express myself towards you in a more compassionate manner. I shall henceforth call you a "special needs education fascist" instead. Hegel must be delighted that you understand him so much.

Posted by: Lurk | Dec 13 2020 21:25 utc | 109

@114 lurk

Yes, I do understand Hegel. And you don't. Which means you are destined to be gobsmacked by history which is a dazzling thing which will make you shit your pants in wonder. Have fun with that.

@113 vk

You are obviously wrong here. And it stems from your inability to understand the relationship between man and government at its basic level. Even ancient people, neanderthals, found themselves organizing innately, forming rules and restrictions upon themselves to propel history forward.

Capitalism as you understand it, purely, is a figment of your imagination. It is pure theory which is destroyed when it meets the natural phenomenon of the nation state which always seeks the better option: namely, the eradication of neoliberalism and unfettered globalism, which will occur in the west in due time.

We will organize ourselves better and with the knowledge of the globalists and their tricks, which has been revealed as nothing more than a culture of death. Abortion is one such glaring symptom.

@112 steven johnson

You can't have both an appeal to ethos and pathos, which you have now attempted. Well, you can try, as you do, and fail in both regards.

An unwanted pregnancy is not grounds for termination of human life at the state level. This is a lame, typically-liberal appeal about the poor woman and not wanting to bring a child into a terrible world. Poppycock! There is no better world or time and place.

Your earlier attempt at an appeal to laws and liberty was, itself, garbage because your precious little brain could not make the connection between the annihilation of liberty as a concept when it is taken away through brute force and power by one able to do so. You can not have liberty without endowing it to all men, equally. And as even biologists know, unique, human life begins at conception. So your appeal to ethos is also trash.

You are just off your rocker.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 21:50 utc | 110

@ MemesisFailing | Dec 13 2020 21:50 utc | 115

I did not realize that you, while studying Hegel, had been simultaneously reading the Annales Civitatis Neandertaliensis.

Bravo, chap! My hat's off to your piercing ability to spot this extremely hard to find historical treatise on the political philosophy of the Neanderthal Empire. If it weren't for brilliant scholars like yourself, we would hardly know anything at all about the peculiarities of the social organization of the Neanderthal man.

And indeed, those silly women can't be trusted to make their own decisions about their own bodies. Because as you rightly point out, they can only ever act blindly and slavishly upon the wishes of the state. That is, unless they have a strong-willed man at their right side, who gracefully takes away the undue burden of thinking and deciding from their ever wanton feeble mind.

Oh how you must yearn back to the days when women knew their place in the cave.

Posted by: Lurk | Dec 13 2020 22:10 utc | 111

@116 lurk

Yes, a woman's right to kill their own baby.

What a glorious civilization and proof that we have surpassed the neanderthal!

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 22:21 utc | 112

@116 lurk

So you are arguing that neanderthals didn't exhibit forms of organization including government, leadership, and gender roles?

Please keep posting because your idiocy is doing the work for me.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 22:30 utc | 113

@ special needs education fascist | Dec 13 2020 22:30 utc | 118

So you are arguing that neanderthals didn't exhibit forms of organization including government, leadership, and gender roles?

No, quite to the contrary, you were claiming that they did. Therefore the onus is also on you to adstruct any such claims, not on me to deconstruct the absent proofs.

As far as I knew, the only hard evidence of Homo Neandertaliensis social organization is literally hard, ie. stones and bones, from which various clever inferences have been attempted to make.

By the spirit of your claims, you seem to have found access to more detailed tomes of Neandertalian knowledge, of which existence contemporary science had not been aware. Feel free to further amuse us with copious examples of your impenetrable wisdom.

Posted by: Lurk | Dec 13 2020 22:48 utc | 114

@ Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 21:50 utc | 115

This is irrelevant. The technology already exists and is relatively readily available. Women who want to abort will do so.

There are a lot of unnatural things humans created. Guns, for example, allows weaker men to kill stronger men - an anathema to nature. Humanity can even extinguish itself with nukes.

Anti-abortion is a lost battle for Christianity. And I'll say more: it may be Christianity's Vietnam War, and endless swamp that will drain the coffers of the Vatican and the Megachurches, only to be in vain and resulting in a mortal loss on the cultural-ideological front. Christianity not only has already lost this battle - it may well have lost the war, from which it will never recover.

Posted by: vk | Dec 13 2020 22:56 utc | 115

@120 vk

You are truly ignorant.

We don't need the Vatican or official churches as Christians. We would like them, of course, but they are not needed.

Vk, I am beginning to feel that your humanness has been greatly dulled and stunted by your steadfast and antiscientific allegiance to Marxism. You barely understand the human from my vantage point. It's quite sad to have such a limited understanding of freedom.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 23:41 utc | 116

@ Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 13 2020 23:41 utc | 121

Nobody is doubting that the ideal scenario would be one where abortions wouldn't be needed. But we live in the capitalist world, where they're needed.

Posted by: vk | Dec 13 2020 23:54 utc | 117

@ worshipper of reactionary idols | Dec 13 2020 23:41 utc | 121

Your kind probably don't even need Christ as christians.

Too hard to follow. Has no place for you to sublimate your angst and anger onto. Not into guns, misogyny and endless nauseating discourse on the merits of your concept of government and the state. Probably doesn't think much of Donald J. Trump.

To make matters worse, Jesus is a suspect leftist, with his hippy beard, girly hairs and softie talk about love and peace. Worst of all is his sacrilegious interfering with free capitalism in the temple. Gaak! a commie!

On the flip side, Christ probably doesn't need you and your faux moralism either.

Posted by: Lurk | Dec 14 2020 0:00 utc | 118

NemesisCalling@115 announces "An unwanted pregnancy is not grounds for termination of human life at the state level." Only God knows what this literally means...state level of what? Unfortunately there is no God to make NemesisCalling coherent. The moral case for compulsory pregnancy is to show how an unwanted child is a moral good. Compulsory pregnancy enforced at "the state level" is the position of moral imbeciles who don't even understand the issues. These fools cannot even point at the supposed victims they were saving, but can only point at the woman they want to force to have a child. When abortion is safe, then outlawing it is oppression, because no one is holier than other people, possessed of divine revelation about when life begins and what they can order us to do honor God. (Yes, all religious arguments rely on the supposition the proponent is holier than me, and you, and everyone else.)

"And as even biologists know, unique, human life begins at conception." Militant ignorance is not an argument. First of all, the withdrawal from the real argument, something about innocence, is met by a fallacious appeal to science. The invocation of uniqueness is obliquely a reliance on racist notions about genes. Except second twins, triplets, etc. are not unique at conception. As for their supposed lives, third, they don't have their own. What they have is life support, which is why so many conceptions fail naturally. Hatemongering filth have made this subject too difficult for research, so it is uncertain how many spontaneous abortions occur, but I've seen guesses as high as half. The obvious conclusion is still what I said: If embryos had their own lives they wouldn't die before exposed to the rigors of the world. This is what happens in a safe environment! The fetuses that resorb a fellow embryo, basically cannibalize a sibling, would by this demented standard, are murderers in the womb, too. As moral analysis, this is madness. A unique set of genes is not a life. Again, that's racist bilge. ("Bilge" is a polite euphemism.)

Posted by: steven t johnson | Dec 14 2020 0:05 utc | 119

@ vk | Dec 13 2020 23:54 utc | 122

Couldn't have said it any better. Abortion is entirely the fault of capitalism.

Yay to the good to the old Soviet Union, that bastion of real existing socialist practice. No abortions necessary - ever.

If you don't like the facts you can always abort them with mechanically recited marxist doctrine.

Posted by: Lurk | Dec 14 2020 0:08 utc | 120

@ Posted by: Lurk | Dec 14 2020 0:08 utc | 125

Well, the USA is a capitalist country, after all.

Or are we discussing an imaginary problem? There aren't any abortions in the USA? Are we talking about a preemptive legalization?

Posted by: vk | Dec 14 2020 0:18 utc | 121

@ vk | Dec 14 2020 0:18 utc | 126

Your claim was that abortions are needed, because of the capitalist world we live in.

I point out how your logic collides with the actual facts.

You move the goalposts and run off-side.

What are you arguing here? Your total incompetence at structured debate? I'm puzzled.

Posted by: Lurk | Dec 14 2020 0:30 utc | 122

@124 steven

I use state here in the Hegelian sense.

In this case, it means federally-sanctioned access to abortion, including funding.

Whereas I believe that the state's role is the safeguarding of freedom and this includes the freedom of not having your life snuffed out because a woman thinks it too much a burden to bring a unique, human being into the world. A human being that is identified as the state as having the same level of liberty as every other individual.

Sorry, you keep bringing up the hardship of the woman. And I keep calling it what it is: willful devaluing of human life by infanticide.

Only one seems worthy of state-securing liberty.

You obviously being an applauder of child killing vary little from the neocon policy we export to R2P brown-people back into the stoneage. Same devaluing, only export, not domestic.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Dec 14 2020 1:16 utc | 123

NemesisCalling@124 continues with the repellent twaddle. Using "state here in the Hegelian sense..." is trying *not* to communicate, as very few people know and even fewer understand him. Hegel complained no one understood him, as I understand it. Embryos and fetuses are not people, and no ignorant bigot trying to flimflam people with a private language has the divien authority to say so. That sort of thing makes you realize, so many people believe in God because they see God in the bathroom mirror every day!

Being an unwanted child is the hardship of the child, not the woman. The absolute indifference to this repeated point is because compulsory pregnancy is not, not, not about the life. You have no moral arguments about how it an unwanted child is a moral argument because you don't care about the child at all. It is about the supposed innocence, in the only time of life "we" know they're truly innocent, before they've been contaminated by passage through the vagina.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Dec 14 2020 1:48 utc | 124

Typo above: "an unwanted child is a moral good..." was supposed to be there.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Dec 14 2020 1:50 utc | 125

@98 Nemesis calling

Try a dose of MND/ALS and see if you're still against paid assisted suicide.

As for abortion. Why do you (and others who feel the same) immediately stop giving a shit about said child when it pops out of its mother? How can you make someone follow through on an unwanted pregnancy and also object to state support of said child (food, clothing and a full education) during its formative years?

I have no opinion on reassignment other than I don't begrudge my taxes going on making someone else happier and more productive. I'd prefer it went on that rather than killing some poor sap several thousand miles away. That you describe it as mutilation speaks loudly however.

The take away thought for me is you're not really a believer in true freedom...

Posted by: Some Random Passerby | Dec 14 2020 9:43 utc | 126

John Helmer's latest:

"Christopher Steele began selling fake Russian intelligence two years before Trump..."

https://twitter.com/bears_with/status/1338371811462049794

Steele and Nuland.

Posted by: John Gilberts | Dec 14 2020 12:50 utc | 127

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.