RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: How to Apply Rhetorical Jiu Jitsu: Abortion and Illegal Immigration - RightNation.US

Jump to content

-----
In my monk-like ruminations over the past six months, I hit on a theme that I hope you all will help me explore. It may be a dead end, but if it's something, it's something big. "It" is the connection between infanticide and societal decay. One of the books I read over the hiatus was The Comanche Empire by Pekka Hamalainen, and while it didn't address the issue, it did cause me to wonder if the Comanches practiced infanticide. They were fierce warriors and used captives to keep their populations up. This made me curious as to whether or not they practiced infanticide.

It turns out just about every culture did. And that got me to thinking about what infanticide does to a society.

The purpose of infanticide is easily understood. If you're a hunter-gatherer society, there simply isn't enough food to support a growing population. If you're a war-like society, you absolutely can't support deformities and weakness. It's an interesting question as to what causes one group to become war-like while another remains peaceful, but I contend that no society that practiced infanticide was ever peaceful.

Then Christianity spread, and infanticide was curtailed. It wasn't eliminated just as no sin has ever been eliminated, but it was diminished. What effect did this have? Imagine if you have a powerful incentive to "raise all children". How do you support them? You certainly can't do it as a hunter-gatherer society. And if you're a farmer, you'd better be on your game. You'd better diversify, innovate, and think ahead. To me, this explains a great deal of the technological dynamism and concomitant population increase.

Again, infanticide didn't disappear completely. In those parts of Europe where heathenism remained strong, infanticide was practiced. Wherever Christianity decayed and corrupted, infanticide was practiced. The reasons for practicing it never really went away. But at least there was now a powerful force against infanticide invading the minds and hearts of Western Civilization. This catalyzed enlightenment and make Western Civilization far stronger than any other.

When European settlers came to North America, especially the Puritans who colonized New England, they encountered Natives who practiced infanticide. (Understand, I am well aware that some women practiced infanticide in Puritan New England, but it was rejected as a society.) Imagine how these European settlers, and subsequent settlers as Americans spread westward, saw the Native tribes whose societies openly accepted the practice. To do so, all you have to do is think about how you would view your next door neighbors if you found out that they regularly murdered their newborns. You'd call the police. Think about this when you discuss "what we did to the Indians". But that's a matter for another time.

Abortion is no different to infanticide in cause and effect. It only adds a modern, technological sheen that makes it palatable to some post-modern Westerners. The reasons for it are the same. Population control, eugenics, "reproductive freedom" are nothing more than the bleats of frightened hunter-gatherers who carry iPhones instead of clubs. And the effects are the same. Or at least they will be. We've only been openly practicing infanticide as a society for forty three years. We've already seen a decline in family cohesion, and that has been apparent where infanticide is most practiced. The effects on technological dynamism are less apparent, but the shortage of Americans able to do skilled blue collar jobs might be the first sign. As we continue, the same shortage will manifest in the high tech sector. Some will argue that the fact that we have to import programmers from Pakistan and India already shows the effect.

We have two choices, increase immigration or stop infanticide. If we choose the former, we will no longer be a country. If we choose the latter, we continue as a country and have a prosperous future. History is with the latter. If you're a leftist or even a moderate (The word for you is now "cuck". I'll explain in the comments if you wish) the ghost of Thomas Malthus may have appeared on your shoulder to remind you that the planet can't support any more people just like the desert valley I live in couldn't support any more Indians two hundred years ago. Well, once the products of Western Civilization began to settle this valley, it magically supported them somehow.

Malthus wasn't just debunked by history, but also by one of the fathers of communism. Feidrich Engels pointed out Malthus' claim that the human population expands geometrically (1-2-4-8-16-32-64...) while food production expands arithmetically (1-2-3-4-5-6...) was BS. A communist knew it was BS. Yet, here were are a century and half later and people are still convinced the planet can't handle one more human.

So here's what we do. We use rhetorical jiu jitsu when arguing both abortion and immigration. What's the core argument for abortion? We don't want to force women to have unwanted children. The life of the child will be too hard, being unwanted and all, and the life of the mother will be too hard having to care for a child she didn't want in the first place. The child will have to deal with poverty and resentment. The mother won't be able to follow her dreams and reach fulfillment.

Okay.

We don't want any more immigrants because their lives will be too hard. They'll be unwanted and have to live in poverty. People will resent them because they'll prevent our country from following its dreams and reaching fulfillment.

"But!", you say, "We don't have to be a$$holes to the immigrants. We can be welcoming and help them come here to live better lives. Only racists are resentful of immigrants, and the only dream immigrants prevent our country from following are racist dreams of a racist society!"

I say to you we don't have to be a$$holes to children. We don't have to resent them, and the only reason to do so is to follow selfish, I'd go so far as to say Satanic, dreams of being able to do whatever one wants, consequence free. Leftists and moderates ("Cucks", remember?) love to splatter memes around like so much explosive diarrhea asking why pro-lifers care so much for unborn children but won't lift a finger to help children once they're born. It is, in an infinite universe of stupid memes, perhaps the stupidest of them all. Western Civilization has been lifting more than one finger to care for massive increases in the number of children for centuries. It's our defining characteristic.

Just reverse it for the other thing, and that's how you do it.

My Mind is Clean
0
  Like

7 Comments On This Entry

may I steal this?
0
Steal it. Spread it. Pimp it.
0
Yes, please explain "cuck".
0
It's short for cuckold. As in when a bird lays eggs in another's nest, the bird that raises the offspring is the cuckold. It's an image meant to deride those who seem hell bent on raising the rest of the world's offspring by facilitating an invasion of foreigners.
0
Cuckold is also a man whose wife is sleeping around and he may or may not know it. Actually an appropriate term for the sexually free & easy democrats...
0

swede1962, on 15 November 2016 - 11:21 AM, said:

Cuckold is also a man whose wife is sleeping around and he may or may not know it. Actually an appropriate term for the sexually free & easy democrats...


Evidently it's also a genre of pron. I had no idea until I saw someone physically recoil at the word. Some rabidly anti alt-righters breathlessly whine about that application of the term as if it's beyond the pale. I'd say if that offends them the most, that's the definition that applies to them.

If they're cucks, that is.
0
OK thanks. I knew what a cuckold was, I just didn't realize that "cuck" was simply a shortening of the word.
0
Page 1 of 1

5 user(s) viewing

5 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)

Google

Search My Blog

Recent Entries

New Blogroll! And...World's Shortest Movie Reviews

Blog Roll
Ace of Spades
National Review
Got News
RealClearPolitics
ZeroHedge
The Federalist
African American Conservatives
Instapundit


World's Shortest Movie Reviews
American Sniper: Bradly Cooper=Best Actor
The Arroyo: Had a Pureflix feel to the acting, but well shot. Great conservative movie.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies: As usual, the third installment is the best--having an ending really helped.
The Maze Runner: The perfect metaphor for moving to Detroit.
Dumb and Dumber To: More jokes. Cruder jokes. Someone gets hooked on crack.
Snowpiercer: Joe Biden's idea of heaven. Everyone on the Earth living on a train. Captain America admits he was going to eat Billy Elliot.
Hunger Games: Catching Fire: This is what the world would look like without college football.
Interstellar 2001:A Space Odyssey with a soul. You will get very thirsty, so hydrate before viewing.
When the Game Stands Tall Proves my theory that it's worse when you win.
Guardians of the Galaxy Make a fun adventure movie about space and make a ton of money. Who knew? I mean, besides that Lucas guy.
Blended I don't get the "Billy Madison is genius, Blended is crap" review. It's as good as any other Sandler movie.
Mom's Night Out Hilarious. You will laugh unless you drive a black BMW and watch sunsets at the golf course.
The Amazing Spiderman 2 This series is still better than the Toby McGuire one. I actually cared if Gwen Stacy died.
Odd Thomas I understand the critics who didn't like the uneven tone. Way uneven. Still worth watching on Netflix.
Star Trek Into DarknessGood movie. Please, for the love of tribbles, let old Spock die.
Grown Ups 2 Critics, attack. Whatever you want to say about this one, I'm okay with it.
Thor: The Dark World Still very, very good. But I'd like an entire Thor movie set just in Asgard.