As the world’s media and opinion-leader chatterati continue to pour scorn on Donald Trump, their limp attempts to make jokes at his expense are, to my mind, increasingly reminding those of us still left of sound mind just how risible the outcomes of Leftlib ‘thinking’ are.
In order to counteract Trump’s aid ‘ban’, it seems, Norway “has joined the Dutch International Abortion Fund”. As usual with the hyperboleft, the aid ban referred to is actually the removal of Federal funds from abortion clinics. He – like his Vice President Pence – is proLife, he told the electorate this would be done, and now he has done it. As it happens, I’m not rigidly proLife myself: if genetics one day (as it surely will) finds a way to detect psychopathy in a foetus, I would be in favour of abortion on demand to remove that and many other genetic risks. But even there, we need to consider how brave we want any new world to be.
I also don’t believe in the sanctity of human life, because I don’t see what’s particularly special about Homo sapiens the intelligent thug. If a woman has been raped, only a religious fanatic would demand she go through with the birth. On the other hand, if women want to go on about being in charge of their own bodies, then let them take charge….only, with that power comes responsibility…that is, to choose a reliable method of contraception, and use it.
Leftlibs will argue that the uneducated cannot be relied upon to work out where babies come from, and so they need free services. Such Progressives would, however, hold their wringing hands up in horror if one suggested making such protection obligatory. This is a relief, as being myself an uneducated scumbigot Brexiteer fascist, I wouldn’t enjoy having my brain forcibly reprogrammed. Others still on the Right would suggest a programme of sterilisation of ladies who keep on getting “accidentally” pregnant. One has to draw a line somewhere….be that line to do with silly ladies or rabid colonels.
My point here is simple: abortion is a complex moral maze of a subject in which the individual’s considered preference should always be respected. But our species rarely awards much consideration to anything – view any pop TV schedule for evidence – so the topic will generate heated debate into the foreseeable future.
But this is not the way Leftlibs see stuff, because Leftlibists (their military wing) suffer from Consequence Blindness; they are consequentially challenged. Worse still, they’re not up to the challenge….and so we wind up with the International Abortion Fund. The fund – obviously devoted to Hope not Hate – does not however leave one with much hope for the defenceless foetus.
Leftlibs like things to be settled. They like settled science – the daftest oxy yet invented by intelligent morons. You see, they think their credo is scientific, and thus settled. So they’ll settle for any old double-standard antidemocratic shit…..in order to turn what is really nothing more than a contrary opinion into Thought Crime.
It’s probably me, but I’m afraid I find the International Abortion Fund pompously funny. It gives funding to organisations who talk endlessly about human rights, but at one and the same time advocates the killing of a human being. Just as I reject the Catholic nonsense about sperm as a human being, so do I equally easily reject the ridiculous idea that a conscious thing with four limbs and a head inside a human female isn’t human. The idea that such a thing is made human by popping out of a vagina is beyond satire; for sure, it then becomes a being capable of independent existence….but only so long as the parents feed it. Are we therefore saying that, at any time up to the age of, say, six, the mother should exercise her right to kill the baby because it isn’t really a fully-fledged human being? My God, I hope not.
But like I say, I accept neither the groundless assertion that humans have rights nor the sanctity of human life. I am a pacifist (because history has taught me that wars are never worth it) but do I think some Nazi Gauleiter has the right to kill the child I love? No of course I don’t. Would I kill him to stop that outcome? Yes of course I would.
I like to think of my foregoing thoughts as philosophy, because I don’t do ideology. It’s the old open/closed mind thing again. The ideologist would have you believe that all issues are simple, but the philosopher-teacher begs you to consider the complex consequences of any course of socio-economic policy action.
This observer in particular begs you to think about the consequences of such actions on a planet where mega-rich people with very dubious motivations either overtly own or actively fund global mass media.
I’m talking the likes of Arianna Huffington, George Soros, the EU Commission, Rupert Murdoch, the Barclay Twins, MI5, the CIA, the Bloomberg family, the Guardian Trust, CNN senior management and Aleksander Lebedev.
These people don’t care about the consequences of the half-truths or fake facts they print; they care only about the end objective of their agendas….them holding the reins of power, with nobody any longer able to hold them to account.
So this afternoon, I ask only that those demo, screamy-shouties out there give some thought to one potential consequence.
Clearly, you are all determined to ensure that nothing to do with Trump and his Administration is given a chance. Your ideal – stated over and over – is that a democratically elected President and his Manifesto shall not succeed in any of their aspirations. You claim your libertarian right to protest, but you display none of the libertarian values you exploit…and your aim is not protest, but the complete blockage of elective policy. Such is not democratic, it is subversive.
Let us look forward and see one result the vast majority of you desire: the impeachment of this President, and the end of his crusade. In case it had escaped your attention, this President clearly won on the basis of the US Electoral College. That College was fine with you when it looked like Hillary Clinton had a 92% chance of winning. It simply isn’t on to say now – after being roundly defeated – that it needs to be reformed. It didn’t need to be reformed after it elected Obama twice….why does it need to be reformed now?
But let’s forget the College and look at the Popular Vote. Here – even though such is not constitutionally valid – you rightly point out that Hillary won the vote as recorded.
Is it really beyond your common sense to grasp what the consequences would be – after the nomination, after the College result declaration, after the Clinton concession, and after the official Inauguration – if this Four Year mandate was stolen from those who voted for it under the same system that previously elected your guy?
Fully 63 million Americans voted for Trump. According to US electoral rules, he won handsomely. You have the right to be publicly pissed off about losing; but you do not have the right to use vested interests and biased media in order to maim this President before he even gets out of the starting blocks.
It behoves you to accept defeat. It does not become you to make success for the opposing side impossible. But then, those of us with a brain have long accepted that Leftlibs follow a code of conduct unbecoming to either gentlemen or ladies.
The result of your objective being realised is quite obvious: Civil War. It wasn’t a pleasant experience last time. But if that’s what you want, o Progessive thinkers – this time with a civilian population armed to the teeth – then go for it. You are very welcome to the outcome….even though, as ever, you will refuse to accept any responsibility for it.