Men's Rights Manifesto on Abortion

Thoughts.

If women want the "right to choose" then they must also have the responsibility for raising the child if they want it and not demand that the father pay "child support." A exclusive right to choose obligates an equally exclusive responsibility to support.

On the other hand, if fathers are to be obligated to pay child support, at least in certain circumstances, then they must have the right to contribute to the decisions about pregnancy. What if there are conflicting views? If the woman wants the child and the man does not, then she can go ahead and have the child but with no support, economic or otherwise, whatsoever from the father. If the woman wants an abortion and the man objects, the woman can have the abortion but must pay the man reparations equal to whatever child support payments he would have been obligated to pay for the child until that child's independence.

It is time for men to take a stand on this issue.

Milady weeps.

Odds and Ends, 6/25/22

In der news.

It is not clear to me why the HBD Nordicists tend to lump the same populations as being both egalitarian and individualistic, implying that the two traits are linked. It would seem the opposite would the case. Ever since the French Revolution, the Far Left has linked an egalitarian ideology with collectivism. Even on the Far Right, the collectivist folk communities of fascist movements were egalitarian at least in the sense of mitigating class differences to enhance the organic solidarity of the ethny. Never mind that some of Der Movement's favorite ethnies are no more individualistic then the allegedly ethnocentric collectivist (sic) Italians.  Also see this. I also do not see a clear connection between late marriage and individualism. It would seem that the harsher ecologies that would lead to later marriage would also promote societies that are collectivist as well as egalitarian. I believe that this HBD Nordicist nonsense derives from the Eloi paradigm - the worshipped ethnies are just too good, too noble, too honorable, too altruistic, too egalitarian, and too individualistic for their own good - as opposed to the runty penned up chicken Morlocks.

Ultimately, the problem with Trump as President is that he governed as if his electoral base of support came from Blacks and Jews. He catered to those who hate him and betrayed his base of supporters (sounds like Amren). Trump had one of the most bizarre and politically inept Presidencies in American history, and he retained (most of his) White support in 2020 essentially only because they had nowhere else to go and they were fearful of a Biden Presidency.

See this.  You'll notice that my writing over the years has essentially ignored Yarvin and his "Cathedral" nonsense. Granted that the critiques of Joyce and Jeelvy have merit - and I believe that they do - they are in my opinion almost superfluous. Consider the corpus of Yarvin's work. \There's no "there" there. I see nothing particularly novel or interesting in anything Yarvin gibbers about; he has authority on Der Right only insofar as Alt Right knuckleheads, juvenile manosphere jackasses, and "neoreactionary" "traditionalists" pay attention to the imbecility of his work.

The only good thing about this - besides exposing leftist hysteria - is that it will accelerate right/left geographical sorting and balkanization, as people move to states that have abortion laws that they find congenial. Of course, that will enrich "right-wing states" with Christian religious yahoos who worship Negro fetuses, but we can't have everything.

The Sallis compromise on abortion is as follows. Women are allowed one abortion (preferably with the consent of the sperm donor if possible) and the procedure will be accompanied by permanent sterilization. The exceptions to this would be abortions due to rape, incest, danger to the woman's health/life, and/or it is determined that the fetus has some sort of significant (genetic) defect - like being a retard. The vast majority of current abortions do not fit with any of those exceptions and are instead done for the sake of convenience.

Rationale: If a woman is too stupid and/or irresponsible to (correctly) use birth control (herself directly or via her partner) and/or is so psychopathic that she would kill her own child, apart from the exceptions listed above, then she should be removed from the genepool, and is unfit to be a mother in any case.

Note that my compromise maintains the racial and eugenic benefits of the current abortion policy, as births from these women will be prevented. Indeed, my compromise is more beneficial than current policy, because under current conditions, the women in question may spew out offspring at a later date. Moral and religious considerations are irrelevant to me.

Odds and Ends, 5/14/22

In der news.

Laugh at this.

This White Revivalist movement seems dead on arrival. For one thing, the Dissident Righters are in the impossible position of being against all people except whites and, not infrequently, express themselves as favoring only North European whites. This reduces them to political hobbyists, unable to compromise. Further, Latinos are simply not behaving badly enough to support a white racial consciousness.

Fred Reed's logic leaves much to be desired. If the whole point of the "White Revivalist movement" is to promote specifically White interests, why should it also promote the interests of non-Whites whose presence in majority White nations is one of the biggest problems for Whites, who are typically hostile to Whites, and whose interests are already well cared for by the System? Reed's inter-racial marriage is not sufficient justification for a pro-White movement to be multiracial (the problem with WN 3.0 Rosie and the Kids White Nationalism). His implied criticism of Nordicism is a bit more relevant, but it is insofar as Der Movement is dishonest about it. If they want to be concerned only about Northern Europeans then they should explicitly state this, instead of practicing an implicit, furtive, crypto-Nordicism. They hide behind a "pan-White" veneer, while making sure that Der Movement is so hostile to White ethnics that such people are repelled. And his positive comments about Latinos are of course connected to the fact of his marriage and family.

My own basic objections to America First are that (in order of importance):

1. It is multiracial civic nationalism, which I oppose

2. It has, in my opinion, inept, juvenile, destructive, money-grubbing leadership

Since that also describes WN 3.0, what objections do the WN 3.0ers have?

In order of importance, it seems to be:

1. Fuentes is a competitor for D'Nations

2. Fuentes is a short, lawn jockey-sized manlet

3. America First criticizes women

America First vs. WN 3.0 - A duel of wits between unarmed opponents.

Observing the Counter-Currents/America First dust-up, it is clear that bioleninism exists on the Right as well as on the Left. Der Movement, and the associated, but different, Alt Lite, is full of freaks and misfits; it is a natural kakistocracy. How can one explain the prominence of individuals such as Johnson, Goad, and Fuentes without invoking bioleninism?

Laugh at this – two nitwits in discussion. The Nordicist Durocher talks to crypto-Nordicist Hood. Although there is some criticism of Marine Le Pen, there is no honest admission of the failure of mainstreaming and no admission that these "movement" heroes are always, always wrong about all of this.

Thus, listening to that nonsense, with all of the "deep" analysis of electoral details and all of the speculation, they do not address the 800 lb. gorilla in the room - the fact that mainstreaming failed once again, it ALWAYS fails, it has NEVER been successful, either in winning elections or in building the coalitions that Durocher thinks are so important.  These types love to sound sophisticated with their knowledge of esoterica, but they miss the forest for the trees.  It is also no surprise that the Nordicist Durocher disapproves of economic populism - that's common among Nordicists and HBDers, the love of "economic liberalism" that is in fact responsible for much of the racial crisis.

The Right needs to contest the centers of power, and not retreat into "twigs and branches" Type I activism. The point is not that the Left would be dislodged (very unlikely), but that some presence of the Right is required to provide assistance and protection for other activities and to cause chaos and disruption in the System. Dedicated, organized minorities can be very effective, at least to delegitimize the establishment.

The Ted Sallis opinion on abortion is as follows. Yes, abortion is murder. But so what?  People accept murder all of the time. When soldiers kill each other that is murder, even though we call it “war.”  When cities are bombed in “war,” civilians are murdered, and that includes children, babies, and pregnant women. When the USA imposed sanctions on Iraq, didn’t that result in civilian death, hence, a form of murder? A good case can be made that abortion in the USA has had a positive effect, re: race and eugenics, so the spectacle of Der Right – at least the mainstream Right – thinking that abortion must be opposed is pathetic, and the pro-abortion stance of the Left is hilarious. I for one am not going to oppose abortion in the multiracial USA, in which a disproportionate number of abortions are from Coloreds as well as the dumbest fraction of the human (i.e., White) population. A few other points: (1) if men are obligated to pay child support if they are the father (and in some cases, even when cuckolded!) then they should have a right to influence the decision about whether or not to continue the pregnancy, (2) it is interesting that the Left has no problem distinguishing men from women when leftists become hysterical over issues like this, and (3) re: the “protests,” we once again observe the System selectively enforcing the law to advantage the Left and disadvantage the Right.  Der Right ALWAYS loses, because it – ranging from mainstream conservatism to Der Movement – is essentially a grift, and those who are sincere are comically inept.

The thing that gets me about the Quota Queens is this. Even if they dislike me and my ideology and tactics, even if I am “insane,” that doesn’t change the objective reality of decades of utter failure for Der Movement, capped off by the disastrous collapse of the Alt Right, a permutation of the “movement” most of them supported. They won’t even admit failure in general terms, never mind admit any personal culpability for the failure. They have zero accountability; they take responsibility for nothing. They lurch from one catastrophe to another and after it is over pretend that it never happened or was just a minor setback on the glorious road to eventual victory. Even worse – they are hypocrites, for even though they label general criticism of their “movement” as “insane” and even though they’ll absolutely reject any personal responsibility, they will cite failures when it is convenient to do so as part of their feuds, in order to attack “movement” rivals. Thus, it is “acceptable” to cite the Alt Right disaster as part of an attack against Spencer, but we are not allowed to note that Taylor, Johnson, MacDonald, Brimelow, et al. were all on the Alt Right train at least until Heilgate, and in some cases, up until Unite the Right. It is “acceptable” to attack Fuentes, but we are not allowed to note all of the “movement” “leaders” who have supported Fuentes, praised him, were honored guests at America First meetings, etc. The fundamental dishonesty here, indicative of severe character flaws, is vomit-inducing.

I have what I call the "Full Sibling Test" to evaluate biologically-related schemes for separating people ingroup/outgroup, with a prime example being dividing people into ethnostates. If it is theoretical possible for full siblings to end up in different ethnostates based on the biological approach used, then that approach is flawed. That is one reason to reject dividing people based on phenotypic rankings or genetic ancestry testing percentage cut-offs. On the other hand, genealogical ancestry is sound, since full siblings will share the same genealogical background and hence the absurdity of full siblings being biologically separated into different ethnostates is avoided. Of course, dividing people on non-biological factors is another story. And all of this also applies to dividing people in ways other than for ethnostates.

Against Casey and MacDonald

This needs to be addressed.

An imbecilic and stupid submission 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?

This 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.