78 Comments

Most people I know are sick of the so-called "left". Even many of those who used to be glad to call themselves the "left" are embarrassed to say so now. I hope these monsters posing as "democrats" keep on keeping on with their bad selves. It shows who they really are, and I hate to break the news to them, most Americans are *not* like that and don't want to live in a violent hateful world where supposed adults throwing tantrums and burning things to the ground when they don't get everything they want is the rule instead of the exception. Keep it up you childish dividers. You are swelling the ranks of those of us who just want to be left the ef alone and live in peace with one another in liberty.

Expand full comment

I am not a US citizen…

If for the Left, ‘my body, my right to choose what I do with it’ = Constitutional Right to abortion…

does ‘my body, my right to choose what I do with it’ = Constitutional Right to euthanasia?

This dichotomy…

The Left maintains there is a Constitutional Right to abortion which actually is not written in the Constitution in order to permit killing the young in wombs… whilst simultaneous maintaining there is no Constitutional Right to bear arms, which IS written in the Constitution, in order to prevent killing the young in schools.

As an onlooker, it certainly is confusing.

Expand full comment

An explanation from a foreigner, if it's all right.

Tl;dr-version: democracy means you get to vote and then the politicians tells you what to do.

Longer version:

It becomes quite clear what kind of party, including their hangers-on all the way down to Antifa and the black nazis of BLM are if you look at it with a european perspective:

During the rise of democracy in Europe, it rose together with nationalism, due to a great many people heeding the truth that all peoples have the right to self-governance should they so wish it. This of course scared the britches off both the old aristocracies, the budding capitalists and the bourgeiosie as well as the marxists (remember, this is way before the Russian Revolution - we're talking early to mid 1800s, the inspiration being the American and French revolutions).

As both the idea and actual parliamentarism grew in many nations and areas and the idea came to be accepted as the golden standard (mid to late 1800s, generally speaking) and "the normal", so did the various proto-parties. On the conservative and liberal sides, the worry was that uneducated masses could be easily led astray by demagogues promising a Schlaraffenland if they got the vote, and on the nationalist sides the amoral and predatory international capitalism was seen as a danger to kith and kin, it not putting anything before profit, and on the marxists side(s) the people were again seen as uneducated and stupid ready run right back into the fold of the old masters (conservatives moral-wise and liberals financial-wise) if these masters only tugged on the heartstrings of nationalism, church and blood & soil.

A tangled mess to be sure.

The conservatives and liberals generally allied with the financial and commodity-owning elites, alloying politics to (capital) ownership and in effect becoming the political branch of capitalism. This naturally made them smalle in number than the various marxists, who instead took control of the unions, often by founding and funding supra-unions, or a union for unions so to speak, complete with international co-operation. It was this structure soviet-loyal marxists then tried to co-opt for the entire 20th century. The marxists in many nations had to concede that the last thing most people wanted was violent and armed insurrection, and that the working class had "bourgeois" values: honest pay for honest work, one law for all, criminals get taken care of or taken out as need be, family values, tradition and no imperalist expansionism, racial hatred or any other progressive notions.

So what to do, if the marxists were to take control of the means of production and usher in a communist Golden Age, when the people wasn't interested in that? Simple: add democrat to socialist. Use the democratic system and its institutions to take control of civil society, from there take control of the banks and the economy via law and taxation, and then legally buy the entire economy with its own resources, essentially moving money from your right pocket to your left.

Socialist Democracy, and drop the -ist for good measure.

So to sum up this lenghty tirade (?), that's what's happened to your Democratic Party in the US: they have added Socialist to their name and ideals, without spelling it out. While the US certainly has done its share of "cultural imperialism" as we used to say during the Cold War, the exchange goes both ways. How many times have US liberals, progressives and Democrats held up the Scandinavian nations as paragons and proof a high-tax strong and all-encompassing state-system can work and is good? Unfortunately, that misses the main point why our societies worked like literal clockwork up until recently: we were ethnically, culturally and racially homogenous and had been since before Christ*. US isn't, never was, and if I may say so as a foreigner the very idea of racial and cultural homogenity is alien to the idea and ideals of the US (and should be too, I think, as your nation is consciously and purposefully founded - it didn't grow naturally out of Ice Age tribal societies).

That's why the policies of the US (Socialist) Democrats are doomed to fail, and might drag the entire nation, plus Canada and Mexico, down with it.

*None of this entails or demands or even leads to 'racism' or racial hatred, quite the reverse. The normal attitude in any such nation is: "Foreigners have strange ways that are normal to them, if they come here they must obey our norms and if we go there we must obey theirs". Which is pretty much the opposite of racism.

Expand full comment

A note on so called pro lifers. Some of these call for a return of this issue to the states. They call themselves pro lifers, and are considered as such. Not by me! I believe states should have much more powers, as stated in constitution. Catholic teaching is problems should be solved at lowest level possible.... so I think most problems should be at County level

Expand full comment

So., these so called pro lifers... a state should be able to determine when ,if an unborn baby should be killed? One of the few things Federal government must be involved in should be enforcement of basic liberties. Alabama can't decide, slavery will begin again... Idaho can't decide to put red haired women in concentration camps... Vermont and California have absolutely no right to sanction the murder of little innocent babies.

One reason we are going thru this chastisement of Covid depopulation plan.. with more coming! Famine, collapse of nations... is because people believe that They, not God , can decide when innocent babies, or innocent handicapped, or innocent elderly can be murdered.

Expand full comment

🎯🎯🎯

Expand full comment

Annie, keep your guns!

We're gonna need you killing commies sooner than you think.

NO LICENSE NEEDED

NO BAG LIMIT.

I'm feeding mine to wild hogs here in Central Texas, then eating the hogs ... if a food shortage. I cannot abide cannibalism

Expand full comment

If we had very powerful Counties, covid death depopulation would never have occurred in most of USA. Never

Expand full comment

What people forget - or perhaps never knew - is that the Republicans controlled the legislatures in all of the swing states. They set the rules which made it possible for the ballot box stuffing, and so forth, and then they certified the elections and slates of electors. No court will invade what the legislature does to regulate elections, unless there's a legit civil rights issue at stake - and none of the pleadings presented any such issue, so all of the court cases got predictably shot down. So the Republicans essentially threw the election, their Establishment never wanted Trump in the first place, and they weren't going to see him get re-elected, so they set the rules to make that highly improbable. January 6th was an utterly useless exercise, the proceedings in the Capitol were pro forma, the result decided on weeks before.

Expand full comment

Many of those places never even passed those laws in the proper manner, that's the major issue. Of course your major point is correct, the GOP didn't want Trump in the first place and the fix couldn't have been in without their help.

https://www.westernjournal.com/judge-rules-last-minute-changes-states-election-law-illegal/

Expand full comment

We one upped you here in Cali, we are all in in abortion AND healthcare for illegals. Take that Inslee!!!

Expand full comment

Knowing Inslee, it will simply be a week before we're on board with that, too. He's got a serious crush on Newsome.

Expand full comment

Inslee is part of Newsome's echo-chamber-for-POTUS crowd?

Expand full comment

Maybe they can take their favorite constituents, the drug addled homeless, and run off to the desert together.

Expand full comment

My Dad during 60s would have been considered somewhat to the left. By the 80s, a Conservative Republican. By 2000, an ultra right.

His views remained fairly stable.

Many Republicans are cowards, but the killing of innocent babies, advocated by almost all democrats.

Killing babies After birth is now advocatrd by some democrats .

In early 70s abortion advocates had discussions on changing language to make abortion more acceptable to populace. They lied about stats about back alley abortions, wildly. And eventually, lied about established science on when human life began, which was always conception..

Expand full comment

Edit. Adding a bad boy. Just a sec

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A5pRacFfkzM&feature=youtu.be

And if you are pro life Democrat, you are shut out at national level. This began in 1980s. Gov. Casey, and a Kennedy are examples.

Democrats are basically Communists if you look at their platforms.

Republicans are often little better

Expand full comment

The left has lost its collective mind. Police Reform becomes Defund the Police because white police officers hunt down unarmed black males to kill. Too bad the data say otherwise. Limit police ability to enforce the law, and the law becomes whoever is least ethical about application of force. In both cases, the4 primary victims are black and brown.

Keep the Southern Border open. Result is drug trafficking, human trafficking for sexual slavery. That's "compassion." That's more B.S.

Respect sanctuary cities, Incoming migrants (can't call them "illegal aliens," hurts their feelings) head to urban centers where they victimize people of color and spread tropical diseases we haven't seen in decades. Again, compassion? No, B.S..

Transgenderism is real and affects no more than 0.4% of the population, less than one-quarter the number of flat-earth believers. We should join hands and walk with them through the adventure called life. We don't have to turn the whole country upside down.

Obama and now Biden's inexplicable dedication to ensuring Iran gets nuclear weapons has a greater chance of starting WW III than anything Putin does.

Expand full comment

Democrats have many communists in their ranks... communism dreams of a one world government paradise fir workers. The New World Order. Most are too damn dumb to realize they will be killed once NWO is ushered in.

USA is last frontier. If we fall, NWO is a reality.

Expand full comment

It's telling that they always have to lie about reality in order to make their points. If Trump was so bad, why did you have to keep making shit up about him? If this ruling is so bad, why lie about what it actually does? We saw this with another case that I didn't even get to in this one, the football coach praying. Same thing.

--------

https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1541566095068463116

The Supreme Court just ruled that public school teachers can pressure students to join in prayer at public school events but can also retaliate against those that don’t join in.

Religious freedom is dead in America.

-------

If everything is so terrible, why do they have to lie when they tell us how terrible everything is?

Expand full comment

Yes to all of that. And you didn’t even address the clear role of the democratic ecosystem/deep state/uniparty role in Jan 6.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/former-senate-security-chief-dies-death-not-considered-suspicious-rcna35705

“Not considered suspicious”! Why say that unless it’s suspicious?

So many crimes. So little time.

Expand full comment

Yep! Those of you who are new might be interested in this article, where I talk about that some:

https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/end-the-federal-bureau-of-investigation

Remember, on January 6th the country was finally going to hear the evidence of election shenanigans. It’s incredibly ‘fortunate’ for the left that presentation of evidence was canceled, and it’s CERTAINLY in the realm of possibility that the entire thing was (yet another) FBI operation. Once we view the thousands of hours of video and come to the conclusion that the January 6th defendants are political prisoners, there’s only one option — disband the FBI completely.

Expand full comment

Love your essay today.

Expand full comment

I actually know people, who not only care about the January 6th Show, but they also think it's real and that it will actually lead to some sort of punishment for past and present government employees.

it's laughable. they're mostly otherwise smart people... both of em hippie type natural health folks who got somehow got suckered to different degrees by the infection injection propaganda.

the nice lady who used to be a masseuse fell for it all, hook, line, and sinker; while the older gentleman who still does bodywork at least has an open mind to viable medical information even though he went and got his shots (at least one and I'm not asking about the total.)

I do think they're both avid Blue hat wearers who haven't realized just how corrupt their wing of the Republicrat Uniparty has showed itself to be, and that's probably why they're into the soap opera du jour.

Expand full comment

What good does it do to pander to these people? They wouldn't vote Republican if Biden ate two babies on national tv.

Expand full comment

well, I'd never vote Republican even if biden ate five babies.

I don't vote Democrat, either.

I do vote. my choices don't win because too many people get scared that if they don't vote for whichever wing of the Republicrat bird isn't That Guy (at the time, officeholder varies,) then That Guy is certain to win.

rather than voting for someone who still isn't perfect but at least isn't /EITHER/ of Those Guys and isn't as likely to bow and scrape to some aspect of the Security State Corporatocracy..

that'll only happen when people get so sick of trading a known Evil for another Evil (wearing a Lesser Evil mask for election time,) that they actually stop voting for the Apparently Slightly Not as Bad Guy who always turns into Oh Crap Not This Again Guy after the power transfer.

and then even if third parties did somehow get the Hail Mary of a majority vote... then there's the voting machine manipulation to contend with.

Our Benevolent Overlords wish us to only to have the chosen candidate, whomever that might be at the time.

//end bitter aging man political rant,

Expand full comment

//do not end bitter aging man political rant,

Expand full comment

I've never voted for the guy who ended up winning, either. I'm used to losing 100% of elections, which is why I'm so happy calling them both out. The only reason I focus on the left is because they are the ones with the power at the moment. I have plenty of bad shit to say about the fake financial conservatives and neocon remnants still lurking the GOP corridors, it's just that they are irrelevant right now.

But if a libertarian D popped up (and wasn't immediately eaten by the hive), I would happily support the campaign. We need better policies from both parties, not just a continuation of the bumper car cartoon.

Expand full comment

I knew this episode would come in handy when all the blue dogs went running after the squirrel:

https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/roe-v-redux-leak-or-squirrel?

Expand full comment

Perhaps the left might even declare babies are evil creatures and display their true colors. They can announce what a fine public service that Planned Parenthood is providing and provide free tickets to all who wish to visit from wherever. Our friends in the EU might really want such a visit given their awful restrictions of 12-15 weeks. An excellent tourist opportunity.

To be real, once the furor dies down maybe both sides can arrive at a reasonable compromise for the ugly reality we must face.

Expand full comment

Elizabeth Warren floated the idea of putting Planned Parenthood 'tents' on the edges of national parks.

I do not think that's the winning play she thinks it is.

Edit: https://www.dailywire.com/news/elizabeth-warren-wants-planned-parenthood-to-put-up-tents-inside-national-parks

Expand full comment

Wonder what rents for such a facility might be? But just think how much the park service budget would improve to manage the site rentals. A solid make-work project perfect to waste more money, great idea! Do you suppose for equities sake a help center might set up shop next to the new clinics? And given the relative remoteness of the parks what extra compensation might be needed for fuel.

Obviously Warren knows little about what things cost.

Expand full comment

Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood wanted black babies murdered. I am pro life and I would research to get pro life material. You know who's ecstatic about abortion besides Democrats...the KKK.

Ruth B Ginzburg had open appalling quote on this... the racist pig

Expand full comment

Yep, Insanelee is all about medical privacy, unless it involves forcing experimental injections on unwilling subjects. That pompous twit really needs to just shut up and go away!

Expand full comment

Or perhaps serve jail time? Just sayin’

Expand full comment

Anybody who advocated experimental injections on unwilling subjects deserve death penalty. I keep seeing jail time. WHY JAIL TIME? NO! People who absolutely did not want them succumbed out of unrelenting pressure... some died, and more of them probably will die.

Expand full comment

WEF graduate.

Expand full comment

This needs to be hammered away. I see WEF ...I see enemy of mankind.

Expand full comment

Yeah, well each side does ugly real good.

The state should have no interest in abortion before viability and then its only interest is to legislatively [arbitrarily] set when that is. Sad touching stories from either side should hold no sway over what must be a neutral common-sense issue of that bodily autonomy thingy balancing the recognition of a fully-formed human child that has attained the legal right to be considered separately from its mother.

It's a real irritation to me that all Republicans in govt. seem universally to be morons. I've never had a real political home but was always willing to vote Democratic when that seemed appropriate. But I done give up voting for morons regardless of some fantasized "big picture."

Expand full comment

Here's a question I always put to people when abortion is debated (no matter their stance).

"A pregnant woman (say 10 weeks) learns through testing that her child will be born severly retarded. Due to this, she wants to abort the fetus.

Is this morally defensible? Explain your resoning."

Now, I do not by any means ask you to do so, I only posit the question to shine a light on a forgotten fact about abortion, again regardless of stance: the hows and whys of it have changed over time due to a great many factors.

Without ready and legal access to contraceptives, pregnancy was a far greater risk and could have very adverse effects socially both for the mother, the child and society as a whole - unemployed single mothers with several children with different fathers was a breeding ground for all sorts of problems (yes, I sound callous, it always does when we talk societal systems over individual human lives). And that one factor immediately branches out into others.

Point: when talking about abortion, one needs be clear what perspective is used. You're very clear that yours is the woman's right to control her own body, if I understand correctly, limited by the viability of the fetus, and with consideration taken re: medical technology. Sound perfectly reasonable and well thought through.

Back to the initial question: the trap built into it is obvious. If we grant the right to abort a fetus based on whether or not the child will be retarded/handicapped, we endorse eugenics. If we deny the right to abort a fetus as per above, and only then, we force the woman to bear a child she does not want simply to avoid endorsing eugenics. This could thus perversely enough lead to healthy fetuses being aborted and impaired ones being brought to term.

The only solution avoiding these pitfalls would be to leave the choice to the woman, and impose a time limit - Sweden uses 12 weeks as the base line, which can be waived to 18 for medical reasons.

A very easy way to lower the numbers regarding abortions would be to drop all taxes on contraceptives, perhaps even going so far as to subsidise the handing out of condoms at clinics - that would also help curb many STDs.

It is a very hard topic to be dispassionate about (at least for me it is), so if I may, without sound like to much of an apple polisher, I'd like to commend you and SimCom and many others for showing how to have a civil discourse.

Expand full comment

I appreciate very much what you say here.

Having had a very much wanted and planned-for child, I'm exquisitely aware of the knowledge of a growing life inside my own body. I remain grateful these three decades later that I was spared any need to consider what would have been for me personally a terrible and likely unbearable (irony of language!) choice.

And as a mother I feel really savage contempt towards women who take that choice carelessly. But it's not my business or society's.

I'm not in the least troubled by the eugenics aspect, or by sex-selection. Both horrible in their ways but each is still the woman's choice. I recognize that when it comes to sex-selection a woman is often, in other cultures and perhaps even here, compelled by the impregnator or his wretched family or perhaps even hers to abort a healthy child. But a bankruptcy of morals in a society can be expressed in a gazillion ways; that's just one.

After I stopped working full-time in respectable employment, I was a tour guide for awhile in a children's farm/petting zoo, and many of the groups visiting comprised severely handicapped children and adults. For the most profoundly handicapped their life was no blessing to anyone. Just horrible suffering and the destruction of the parents too, and so often of course it was the mother alone left to lift that burden every moment of her life, and to contemplate what would happen if her child survived her.

No society can survive if a significant portion of its people essentially require warehousing, regardless of how fancy we make the warehouse. And I know the agony of a very beloved friend who struggled all her now-middle-aged-son's life to get him into safe, appropriate, well-run permanent such warehousing. The constant struggle to ensure the govt. fulfilled its responsibility and the caregivers gave good care. You can't pay anyone enough to love your child and for those without means, the govt. ain't gonna pay 'em enough fer damned sure.

I really recoil with disgust when I hear the families of profoundly handicapped children talk about the wonderful "gift" and "blessing" they've been given. A suffering human being is not an instrument of someone else's personal redemption and fulfillment. There will inevitably come that time when the burden is spread quite widely.

But a living born child regardless of handicap must be cared for with the very best we can provide and we must fight that it should be provided. But everyone knows it's often not well-cared for at all. Every day--every single fucking day--I read of another handicapped toddler murdered by its mother or the mother's boyfriend or the grandmother, etc. etc. A short life that endured the unspeakable during those few years, and it happens over, and over, and over. Absolutely that poor baby would have been exponentially better served to have been aborted before viability, and its soul, if one believes in such, returned to the vast cosmic ocean of eternal infinity.

Expand full comment

Good answer too, because it's honest. Most people squirm instead of taking a stand.

The line of resoning about the handicapped being a burden in various ways, is one of the ways the whole eugenics thing got started in the 19th century. The other one was financial/elitist, breeding the perfect human and other modernisms.

It was called a mercy, and generally thought of as such. Same with enforced sterilisation and abortion.

Having been born in a nation which practiced eugenic policy at the time (until the mid-1970s actually), and having had students which would have been aborted or euthanised or sterilised had they been my age, I take a different view.

That view is I compare what we spend on pedophiles, murderers, rapists, terorrists, heroin-dealers and so on. The cost per prisoner is about $250/day on average. The welfare-check for a handicapped person is about $850/month.

Why does some people, especially politicians, think a serial rapist is worth more than a disabled child?

Expand full comment

I agree with your evaluation of comparable worth.

But I also acknowledge that modern medicine has interfered with the natural eugenics process, too. It's one thing to repair an infant's heart so it can live a close to normal life. It's another thing to keep alive, through extraordinary constant means, a child who can have no independent life ever.

My friend who finally got her severely autistic son into a group home in the UK, that seemed to be a really nice place, with his own attractive room and pleasant grounds etc. etc., nevertheless had to be vigilant unceasingly to make sure he was well cared for. They housed a vew quite violent people who really needed one-on-one caregiving along with gentle, easily-distressed residents; they had some extremely negligent caregivers who only became more resentful when my friend reported problems; the local responsible council was always having investigations and conclusions and recommendations and changes in the home's leadership and then rinse and repeat endlessly.

And my friend, who is a single mother and has had increasingly poor health for decades until the vax completely blew up her life, doesn't have even the physical resources to do this level of oversight anymore. She has family but they have their own families that need their attention too.

And I can tell you her anguish in contemplating what will happen if he survives her is something no one should have to live with.

If you read the news in the US, every day, in addition to the kids murdered by their parents, are the daycares and schools--licensed, registered, under state legal mandates, etc. etc. etc., who keep abusing even "normal" children and it's only when someone looks into the surveillance tapes, eventually, that one sees what's been happening. A nonverbal child or adult with profound needs, and often unfortunately extremely unappealing, in diapers but weighing what a large adult man weighs--you think they are cared for tenderly? My God. When I saw how caregivers treated some of the children and adults visiting that children's farm, right out in the open in front of thousands, I can't even imagine what happens on the night shift back at the institution.

You find me the guarantee that we can protect each and every one of these most vulnerable,, every moment, from birth to a natural and comforted death, I'm with you.

Expand full comment

Oh, I have seen the ugly side of caretaking - with the best altruistic and noble intents - from the inside, believe you me. Autistic students, albeit high-end cognitive-wise, was my specialty. Downsized staff replaced with medication, mixing and matching of people with all kinds of disorders, what staff is hired is done so along the "you'll have to take what you can get"-attitude, malnutrition, abuse and so on. I will not share actual examples, as I'm still under confidentiality (our rues for that has no date of expiry), but I can say this: if Sweden was to go back to massive institutionalisation (which we had until the early 1990s), complete with sterilisation and abortions, the protests would be loud but token and short-lived. Knowing this has led me to ponder the following (for some 20-odd years):

For some humans, it's as if (mental) handicaps triggers an inner sadist - as if the state of being handicapped somehow validates and justifies abuse. A friend of mine described it as a reflex reaction (which he hated to experience). Perhaps experiencing an emotion one is conditioned to reject as evil without any tool or path for disassembling and understanding it, is what triggers some humans to become cruel to some kinds of weakness?

I believe Arendt covered an aspect of this in her books about the Holocaust, that some of the camp staff hated the prisoners not due to their race or other, but because they were "wwak" and that very weakness was what forced the staff to be cruel to them - some kind of vicious double-helix of emotional reactions and abuse, if I'm putting the words right.

Expand full comment

There's a primitive satisfaction in making someone else cry. Most of us learn to control it. I remember my 8 and 10 and perhaps 12-yr old self, making my brother cry with scary stories, and my cousin cry when I kept saying [grandma] was dead, because in my family we used the same Yiddish word for my great-grandma that she used for her maternal grandma. I wasn't confused, I was being deliberately mean.

Why? I can blame it, I guess, on having an alcoholic father who beat me with a belt and this was my lancing-the-boil mechanism, and I was low on the social-status ladder in school and in the neighborhood so this was the only place I could in turn inflict pain.

Or I was just a shit and learned, later, it was a bad way to be. Who knows?

Expand full comment

As kids we act like the little sadists kids are, and (ideally) get told off in such a way we feel shame, and also (when the cying stops) get it explained to us why and how what we did was wrong.

The old saw of "do as I say, not as I do" have some merit, even if the original meaning has been debased into referring to hypocrisy and not the simple fact that an adult has so much more experience and intellect than a child, that any real in-depth explanation (especially in a heated moment or an emergency) becomes unresaonable or gobbledygook.

We often carry with us the exact turning point, when we started to develop a moral sense on our own. Some examples of when that doesn't work:

Sociopaths can't, it's the main thing making them a problem.

Kids that instead are taught norms that run counter to society (say moslem kids in a western nation being told hating and abusing jews is a sacred duty) cannot be reached by the shaming mechanism.

Pedophiles after their first episode of abuse can no longer be helped; they will always commit further abuses because there is no going back for them, and the shaming-mechaism has been subjugated by rationalisation instead.

Autistics have stunted socialisation ability and development; the low-functioning often withdraws and the high-functioning becomes arrigant and dismissive of what they see as play-acting, while still experiencing emotion, sham and guilt but without the practice needed to handle/process them correctly. Which is why there's tragically often an overlap between HFA's, psychosis and schizophrenia. But I digress.

What you demontrate is what the greeks taught: Gnothi Seauton, know yourself. That is rare.

Expand full comment

It's been a hard journey getting here.

Expand full comment

And I would say you're the best explainer of these things I've ever encountered, anywhere.

Expand full comment

Thank you, that is very generous (is that the right expression?) of you. Though in all honesty, if no-one shared or asked, there'd be no-start for my train of thought, would it?

It's been a journey, true indeed, for many of us who for one reason or a thosuand somewhere, somewhen decided to stop, stand and say: "No more. I will not do violence to myself, my mind, my soul anymore."

I still remember many of the revelatory moments I've had (slow learner...). Sitting on a ledge looking down on my droogs and realising it's rehab-yoyo, prison-pinball, the grave or shape up. And it's on me. And half a minute after that thought hits me like a steel-toed boot to the nads, I meet my wife. She worried about the walking skeleton sitting on a ledge like some biker-jacket sporting gargoyle.

The rest is history as they say.

See you in the stacks, 'cause it's dinnertime here now.

Expand full comment

Yes I've known since the GOP railroaded Ron Paul out of the party that they weren't interested in actual small government solutions. Ultimately I think nearly all states will end up with Euro-style restrictions. I'm not sure if Democrats will be satisfied with that.

Expand full comment

Can you give a readers digest explanation on Euro-style restrictions AND, is this going to be something that will put me out on my ledge again?! Thanks.

Expand full comment

There are some good graphs in link below - majority of the Western European countries according to 3rd graph in middle of page allow abortion up until 12 weeks.

https://abort-report.eu/europe/

Expand full comment

Generally, Euro countries draw the line around 15ish weeks, with later exceptions for the health of the mother. (Actual health, not 'mental health')

Expand full comment

Thank you so much……..now I won’t have to take an aspirin.

Expand full comment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6235557.stm ....as is typical with these maps, you have to actually read each country and not just look at the map. "On request" doesn't mean "unlimited".

Example:

FRANCE

Availability: On request

Gestational limit: 12 weeks

Conditions: The woman must claim to be in a "state of distress" because of her pregnancy. After 12 weeks, abortions are allowed only if the pregnancy poses a grave danger to the woman's health or there is a risk the child will suffer from a severe illness recognised as incurable. If this is the case, two doctors must confirm the risk to the health of the woman or foetus.

Expand full comment

I think no side will be satisfied with that.

Expand full comment

That's how you know it's a good compromise. ;)

Expand full comment

Except treating this as essentially a cultural issue is profoundly dishonest.

Pregnancy is an arduous physical condition regardless of all other considerations. A woman's body is permanently altered.

The opinions, the moral arguments of others should have zero credence before the point of viability. I think abortion is a hideous reality but an absolutely necessary evil, yet whatever I think about it should be irrelevant. Until the point of viability, no moral weight whatsoever should be attached to it under color of law or otherwise.

Expand full comment

You are being much too reasonable, SCA.

Expand full comment

A woman’s body is permanently altered…this is true…whether she gives birth…or aborts the pregnancy at some point.

An abortion does NOT return a woman’s body to a “never been pregnant” state

Expand full comment

Abortion changes a woman forever. Worse, these abortion pills the left is so cavalier about sending through the mail without doctor eval or follow-up is deadly shit. Pregnancy is not a surprise unless a woman is raped which is illegal and accounted for in abortion laws. Women hold responsibility to stay un-pregnant if they don't want to have this problem, and being pregnant and unmarried now is nothing like it was 50 years ago, nobody is making women keep and raise babies they don't want. The landscape that made abortion make a little more sense long ago hans completely changed, while abortion ghouls have been making big business of ruining young women's lives through the abortion, transition and now covid vax clinic (without parental consent, naturally).

Expand full comment

It's nobody's business except the woman's before the point of viability.

Expand full comment

i am a woman and i would agree with you except- the State seems to have two compelling interests here 1) encouraging the next generation of workers, tax payers, voters and cannon fodder and 2) the general prohibition against murder is harder to make if you have carve outs.

politicians and lawyers can argue about when life becomes life- is it the heart beat? the viability (which changes as medical intervention gets better at spending vast sums keeping super premies alive)?

there are those who would argue that children aren't really viable until they are in their 30s! i heard a rabid woman in an interview insisting that it was a woman's choice and ALWAYS a woman's choice even when it came to murdering her 3 year old. i think reasonable people would agree that she had gone too far. but when does "nobody's business" become too much to bear?

which is why abortion is such a complex issue- it is the extinguishing of a life and yet if the developing fetus were, let's say, a rapidly growing cancerous tumor taking over, no one would argue against cutting it out. and because it's growing in someone else's body, there are two sets of rights which may sometimes compete.

from what i see posted on line, i think many women are angry about the unfairness of childbirth but that's just how it is. wishing it to be a more shared burden is like saying trans "women" are women- it ignores reality at it's peril.

you yourself say "Pregnancy is an arduous physical condition regardless of all other considerations. A woman's body is permanently altered." but i know women who LOVED being pregnant and everyone's body is permanently altered just with the passage of time. are you the same physical person you were at 20?

from the point of view of the species, a woman's only function might be simply to make more and contrary to what you said about the arduousness of it all, women evolved to endure it. all those organs and hormones exist for a reason.

there was a time in my life when i swore i would leave the country if roe vs wade was ever overturned even if i was post menopausal and no longer directly affected by it because it would indicate that the country had swung too far to the right. but watching the "my body, my choice" crowd disavow that sentiment when it came to covid vaccines has caused me to rethink my position. these days i think that getting back to the Constitution is more important than whether or not some woman is inconvenienced when trying to off her child. honestly these women seem so angry- at men, at their own physicality, at everything, like they're in some kind of death cult where everything is miserable.

and to be perfectly candid, i had an abortion in the early 80s so i'm not just blowing smoke. i remember getting the connection through a friend and having to travel to an out of town doctor. i have no regrets; i simply didn't want children. i certainly didn't throw a party to celebrate. i don't feel any particular way about it; it's simply a fact.

but something as momentous as this shouldn't be too easy. it's not brushing teeth. i agree with what Mayor Pete once said, that this decision was not made easier by the government's intrusion. but on the flip side, Mayor Pete and his ilk seem to want the government to intrude in a no holes barred helpful, all expenses paid kind of way which also seems wrong to me.

somewhere along the line, the "safe, legal and rare" lost the rare part.

i guess i don't have any answers, merely lots of thoughts

Expand full comment

All arguments, good or bad, are irrelevant until the point of viability. Freedom--theoretical and actual--is costly. People want it for themselves and hate that others can exercise it and that's true in every realm of life. It's just no one's business until the point of viability. That's it. That's the hill, really, to die on.

Expand full comment

It is the woman’s “business”…and the man’s, and the baby’s, and the grandparent’s and siblings….and God’s.

Expand full comment

No. Only the woman's.

Expand full comment

Some would say after that, either, but that's not really on the table.

Expand full comment

Well, that's why we have laws in society. All laws are arbitrary decisions about what is permissible/impermissible for a society to achieve reasonable stability in an unpredictable and largely ungovernable world. There's always a "yes, but" for everything.

Expand full comment

Abortion itself IS a cultural issue, but the laws should be free of all that. Therein lies the problem.

Expand full comment

It's an issue of rendering women's fertility not a private biological feature of the female sex but a resource in which the state/society declares a communal interest.

Expand full comment

Profoundly so.

Expand full comment

Republicans may not be the answer to the problems that worry you, but Democrats surely are the source.

Isn’t that obvious enough by now?

Expand full comment

the Blue hats sure are visibly screwing up at the moment, but that is no excuse to jump right back to lesser evilism in the next election. look what that got us with the last election.

third parties!

Expand full comment

Yes, but, I’m watching………..

Expand full comment
Error