Was This Ever a Christian Country?

If not, making it one would be a revolutionary act.


I recently watched a documentary on Amazon Prime called The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers. In it, Christian Pinto, a strongly anti-Catholic Evangelical Christian, examines the faith of some of the most famous of our Founding Fathers: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and notable philosophers such as Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His contention is that the Founders, far from being Christian, were in fact quite adversarial to established Christian doctrine.

Let me preface this by saying that I am a cradle Catholic and while I recognize other branches of Christianity as fully capable of devotion, I do not take kindly to people knocking the Catholic Church or insinuating that somehow Catholics are not Christian; that I am certainly not a conspiracy theorist, but I recognize the possibility of conspiracies; and that as an historian, I hold anything discussing matters of history to a high degree of skepticism. Now that that lengthy disclaimer is out of the way, Pinto’s documentary at times goes way overboard on the conspiracy bits, but his overall thesis holds water.

I know from having extensively studied American history, particularly that of the Revolution, that many of the Founders were not overly religious at all. Jefferson was extremely critical of Christian doctrine; Franklin was a known deist; Washington rarely mentioned God, and when he did, he referred to Him as “Providence.” As for Rousseau and Voltaire, they were extremely anti-Christian. On his deathbed, when Voltaire was being given last rights and was asked to reject Satan, he is said to have replied, “Now, now, this is no time to go making enemies.” Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense and The Crisis, later went on to be a Jacobin radical in the French Revolution and was a proto-Communist. So fuck Thomas Paine. I can personally attest to the fact that many of the Founders were at best lukewarm on Christianity and many were openly hostile to established Church doctrine. It is also widely known that many of the Founders were Freemasons. That’s not conspiracy talk at all. If Disney’s National Treasure saying so doesn’t do it for you, the House of Representatives said so in 2007.

Freemasonry is the subject of all kinds of conspiracy talk, some of it realistic, lots of it just plain nutty. Is it an evil cabal bent on world domination? Probably not. Are lots of well-connected people Freemasons, and do they help each other get ahead? Absolutely. I cannot get into details on it, but I have personally witnessed it. One thing for sure is that Freemasonry is open to pretty much anyone as long as they believe in a god, any god, and are rather ambiguous about who or what that god is. He gets into some nutty bullshit about the Catholic Church’s involvement in American independence, but ignoring that aspect, the rest of what he says is really nothing that Americans have debated for years regarding the role of faith in our Founding or subsequent generations of America. Nothing I have said here so far or refer to in his documentary is all that peculiar or controversial, and after doing some research, I confirmed a great deal of what Pinto states in Hidden Faith.

Here’s the controversial part. Pinto comes to the conclusion that the Founders, at least the most influential of them, were not only not Christian, but hostile to Christianity. They in no way meant to establish the United States as a Christian nation. The inclusion of total religious freedom in the First Amendment and the later declaration that we were “not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion” as stated in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 was meant to prevent Christian theology from serving as the law of the land, despite the fact that many of the original colonists were devout Christians who came here to worship freely. If this is the case, and I personally believe that it is, what does it say for the future of our country?

The Founders were brilliant, educated men, deep thinkers who took great pains to protect the liberties they had labored so intensely to protect. That being said, it seems improbable that they ever believed that the country would ever be anything other than Anglo-Saxon. Ben Franklin railed against German immigrants because they weren’t white enough. Fucking Germans, not white enough! John Jay praised the fact that we were one people, speaking one language, united by a common faith. The idea of freedom of religion was probably just in theory, or perhaps as a protection for the substantial number of Catholics who were at once reviled by other Americans and had fought in disproportionate numbers in the Revolution. One can easily (and rightly) get the impression that our founding elites were largely of the same mindset of our current ones – you are free to believe whatever you want, as long as they got their way. They never intended for religious plurality beyond different denominations of Christians, much in the same way that our current elites believed that no immigrants would ever prefer any values other than American. But this is not the issue. The issue is what this implies for the Right.

If America is not a Christian nation, if the Founders never intended it to be, then so-called Conservatives have nothing left to conserve. They failed to protect any Christian institutions or the practice of it in anything but narrow means. This would be the death-knell for their claims on America’s past and future. For the rest of us, those who actually plan on winning the culture wars, it means that by pushing for Christian values and Christian primacy in the United States, we are not trying to restore something lost but instill something new. This has tremendous implications for our cause, as it means we actually have something around which to rally. Perhaps, here, ends the Old Secular Order.

Bill Gates and the African Invasion of Europe

One way or another, the recent tidings of this globalist bastard bode well for us.

Last week, Bill Gates publicly stated that the European Union needed to make it more difficult for African migrants to reach Europe, and that if present policies continued, Europe would be overwhelmed. Bill fucking Gates said that! I admit, I am as shocked as anyone else by this turn of events. It’s very out of character. So why the sudden come-to-Jesus moment for a liberal globalist SJW billionaire insider? There are four distinct possibilities.

  1. Bill Gates really believes that Europe must be saved.
  2. Bill Gates does not want Europe overwhelmed with barbarians who cannot use Microsoft products and who do not respect copyright laws, and hence will dilute his business.
  3. Bill Gates is speaking for all globalists and is trying to placate the growing antiglobalist, nationalist movements growing all over Europe.
  4. In an attempt to keep Microsoft going, Bill Gates is trying to corner the market on moderates and conservatives, as Google and Apple have a lock on the far-left.

Okay, scenario #1 is bullshit. Bill Gates has shown time and time again, whether through his meddling with public education, his black-holing of vast wealth into Africa, and his decision not to leave his fortune to his kids that he couldn’t give a damn about America, the West, or their attendant civilizations. He recently advocated for the U.S. to keep educated foreigners here, which is injurious to actual Americans. Microsoft uses its proximity to Canada to bring in cheaper foreign labor, so obviously protecting the people of Europe doesn’t matter to him either.

Scenario #2 is very possible, but it does not have to be his only motivation. It could be in conjunction with #4, maybe even #3. Despite all the happy talk, most people are well aware that Africa is a hellhole because it’s full of Africans. Making Europe full of Africans will make Europe more like Africa, and nobody wants that, including Africans. Bill Gates likes making money and sees everyone else as peons there to enrich him. If he has to pawn all of Europe to keep making money, he will. Europe could do worse.

Scenario #3 is fully possible as well. Old Billy Boy and his crew of highest-tier elitists would have done well to remember the old adage “a good shepherd fleeces his sheep, he doesn’t flay them.” Like the dwarves of Moria, he and the other globalists delved too greedily and too deep. Now the entire New World Order scheme is at risk. Contrary to what libtards like to believe, our side has a VERY real chance of winning in the long run, so long as they fail to set the board in full. This could be an attempt to buy time for the globalists. If you read the story, you’ll see that he is all about funneling money into feel-good boondoggles in Africa and the Middle East. As long as the West is propping up these degenerate shit-states, the men of the West are still slaves.

Scenario #4 seems unlikely, but I have seen anecdotal evidence for it. I myself quit using Google a few years ago when on Easter Sunday their graphic celebrated Cesar Chavez instead of Jesus Christ. Google is off the deep end in terms of Left-wing advocacy. I switched to Bing, which is Microsoft’s search engine. Every day it offers a high-quality photograph for its background, but it typically offers something pro-American or pro-Western on days like Christmas, Easter, Fourth of July, or Memorial Day. Microsoft was used to being the industry leader, but when Apple jumped way out in front with iPhones and iPods and Google went to the top in terms of email, search engine use, and free Office-like apps, MS knew it was in trouble. Acknowledging that it can’t compete in genuine leftism because of its corporate shark image and that Apple has cornered the youth/hipster market, MS could be seeking to corner the older, more conservative set, because it still has the most money.

Whatever his reasoning, remember this: At best we have a major corporation that is becoming less hostile, even slightly friendly to our people. At worst, we have a rearguard action by globalists that is too little, too late. The fact that Bill Gates said this at all should give us hope, because it means either globalists fear us or some globalists are coming around. It is fully possible that after years of pissing away money in Africa, Bill Gates is losing his patience. His entreaty to keep funding the Turd World may be simple lip service before he and others like him shift to the Right some more. No matter what, this is a good sign.

Meme Wars

Sorry I have not posted anything for a bit. Busy times here at the Rider place. Here are some memes to tide you over. See Vox Day’s blog for more info on the daily meme wars.

Note: Pube Head is Jamie Raskin, (((representative))) from Maryland’s 8th District. He is a former professor of constitutional law (in other words, a consummate bullshit artist), and as a Maryland legislator, pushed for legalized marijuana, same sex marriage, and popular-vote presidential elections. Now he spends his time saying we must impeach Trump. If he’s so smart, why does his head look like a fucking merkin?

When Violence is Justified

Cucks need to recognize the situation.

JJ Sefton over at Ace of Spades blog condemned the attack on the Finsbury mosque Muslims. He said something along the lines of violence is never acceptable. I am quite certain that Sefton is the same kind of conservative douchebag who will get all choked up on Veterans Day and memorial day. So apparently, violence is acceptable sometimes. I would like to ask people like Sefton what their criteria are for acceptable violence. What was it about the Nazis and Imperial Japan that justified killing them? I’m not saying we shouldn’t have, I’m just asking why it was okay. Why was it ok to run budget deficits during the Cold War? What is it, exactly, that we were opposing?

If we believe that the left is trying to take our basic freedoms, that makes them by default the enemies of freedom. They have committed observable, widespread violence against not only people on the right but people in the center who dare to not toe their line. That means that there is a need for self defense which is the strongest justification for violence. I would honestly qualify today’s Left as a more insidious threat than the Soviet union ever was. The Soviets, for the military threat they theoretically posed, never controlled our universities, they never controlled our media, they never dictated and funneled American thought. Despite a Soviet influence and Soviet funding, the people doing that have been American. Or English. Or French. Or German.
People like Sefton who claim to be conservative, but haven’t actually conserved shit. Were they able to protect marriage from high divorce rates and infiltration by homosexuals? No. Have they been able to protect traditional gender roles? No. Have they been able to protect the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next in the form of public schools and universities? Absolutely not. Look at the situation at Evergreen state for an example of what a great job they have done conserving things here. Remember too that Evergreen College was started by the prompting of a Republican governor.

If one were to read the Declaration of Independence, one would find striking similarities to the situation in which we find ourselves now. Substitute black gang members for American Indians in terms of the unscrupulous warfare Jefferson described, and substitute illegal aliens for black slaves in the paragraph that was stricken, and it matches up pretty well. We have as many legitimate grievances concerning our government as our Founders had against the British Crown. So let’s stop pulling our puds. Either the left is our enemy and is antithetical to everything that is American, or we’re just bullshitting here. I for one am not bullshitting, so I regard the Left, no matter how far or how moderate, as my enemy. Perhaps 50 years ago, we were all Americans debating on the best course forward. We are not the same tribe anymore. The left is full of shit. They would destroy everything about traditional Western society given the opportunity.

While it might go against our personal beliefs in the way that we treat one another and the way we behave in a society, we have to understand that this is not an American political debate. This is a war. We have to be willing to use violence, deception., and a certain degree of cruelty if we are going to prevail. Some people still cannot picture themselves pulling a trigger for lying to advance a cause. If this is you, then preserving and passing on Western civilization is an armchair hobby for you, not a mission. If that is the case, just stand aside and don’t open your mouth to condemn those who have the spine to do what needs to be done.
And for God’s sake, stop trying to live by the Left’s standards. They are wrong about everything, so any of their standards of what is good, intelligent, wholesome, useful, wise, or commendable, is total bullshit. Don’t believe them. Don’t trust them. Don’t try to sympathize with them. Don’t look for common ground. There is none. We no longer have a common culture. They are invaders, not countrymen, and therefore violence is perfectly acceptable against them. So let idiots like JJ Sefton know that they need to shape up or ship out.

Trump as Caesar

The comparisons are not out of line, and that’s a good thing for our side.

The libtards are currently shit hot on portraying Trump as Julius Caesar, and take great delight in watching his mock execution at recent Shakespeare in the Park productions. Their comparison is actually quite apt, though they do not know why. One thing I have found consistently about liberals is that they have only a rudimentary grasp of history, and never question the gaps in the narrative invariably left by substandard history teachers. If they understood history, they would know that Roman history did not turn out well for those who opposed Caesar.

How did Gaius Julius Caesar come to power? Not through the traditional methods, to be sure. Caesar was working in the last days of the Republic. One can reasonably argue that it was a dead letter before he was named dictator for life. He was an outsider who despite having wealth and a good family name was not part of the in-crowd among Rome’s elite. He sought as his base not the merchant and banker middle class or their hangers-on, but the poor of Rome, citizens who had seen their birthright diluted by foreigners and financial elites. Caesar was the first major politician since the Gracchi brothers to actively court voters in the slums. Sound familiar?

After essentially purchasing a consulship (there were two consuls, who were like co-presidents), the Roman Senate, a bunch of self-interested elitist pricks, tried to fuck over old Gaius by exiling him to a governorship in Gaul, just over the Alps in what is now southeastern France. He could have served out his time and retired, but that was not in his nature. Caesar, like Trump, was driven by two factors: an overwhelming desire to make it to the top of the heap, and a love of country. Many try to deny the latter just as they deny Trump loves America, but these people tend to be binary thinkers who don’t understand history, human nature, or jack shit.

So what did the notorious GJC do? Took over all of Gaul. Fucking all of it. He spent eight years kicking the shit out of proto-Frenchmen and looting their shit. He kept some of that booty for himself, but he sent a lot of it back to Rome. There, it paid for food and entertainment for the poor as well as cleverly-placed political bribes. He wrote his own memoirs of his Gallic conquests and sent them back to Rome. His military glory and support of the Roman poor made him immensely popular. More so than any of the condescending pricks who fancied themselves Rome’s masters or their low-class figurehead Gnaeus Pompey Magnus, certainly. They did not like it, not one bit. Caesar was an outsider who did not like their program of self-aggrandizement at the expense of Roman society, and he had the means to topple that program. They declared him a criminal for his unauthorized conquest of Gaul and ordered him to return to the city to answer charges of bribery and treason, both of which carried a death sentence.

Caesar understood the score. He knew that after the dictatorships of Marius and Sulla and the murder of the Gracchi Brothers, the Roman Senate and the ruling class of patricians were completeley full of shit. The law was what they said it was and what it was depended on what made them richer and more powerful. In their incestuous pissing contests, the patricians had flooded Rome with slaves that put common Romans (plebeians) out of work, and used this inflicted poverty to buy up all the land and hence means of production. Regular Roman farmers could not compete with the huge, slave-operated plantations of the patricians. Sound familiar? Caesar grasped all this, did not like it, and realized that when a legal system is not used fairly, evenly, and for the benefit of all, it can be violated by any man who has the means to escape punishment. Laws are for everyone or for no one, and Caesar wasn’t going to be tried in a kangaroo court by a bunch of soft-handed catamites.

What happened next was one of the greatest stories in Western history. Caesar, with one legion, marched into Italy and crushed his old friend and fellow triumvir Pompey, kicking his wrinkled old ass up and down the Mediterranean. After banging the queen of Egypt like a screen door in a hurricane, Caesar came back to Rome where he was honored with the title of dictator for life. By law, dictators could only serve for six months, but that law had already been ignored so often and so flagrantly that no one could really say it was wrong for Caesar to do so and keep a straight face. The common people loved Caesar in power because even if he did things that screwed them over, he screwed over the patricians even harder. They were content to take three inches of dick up the ass in exchange for their enemies taking nine. Sound familiar?

That is not to say that Caesar screwed over the plebs. He by and large kept his promises. He created large infrastructure projects that were only open to Romans. He limited the number of slaves that could be imported to create employment for the common people. He appointed plebeians and patrician outsiders to positions of power. Any of this sound familiar? Along the way, he pissed off a lot of people, mainly wealthy patricians and the rich among the plebeians who saw his actions as a threat to their power. They took action.

By their reasoning, a man who relied on the plebs had no real allies worth mentioning. The patricians who sided with Caesar were traitors who could be expunged with no consequence. A plot to assassinate Caesar was launched, led by Brutus and Cassius. They stabbed the old boy to death, under the premise that they were saving the republic. Of course, by that time, the republic was the governmental equivalent of a porn star in her sixties, and in no way resembled how it had originally been designed. Made to protect the Roman people and bind them together, buttressed by traditional Roman values, the republic had descended into a place of sharp class divisions with no sort of restraint, where the law applied only to people who could not pay their way out of its consequences and where slaves and foreigners displaced the Roman people. Sound familiar?

The elitist nancy boys and their more militant accomplices (substitute John McCain and his boyfriend Lindsey Graham for Cato and Cicero and you have a good idea of who was in on this) thought that they would be greeted with parades and rose petals. In their minds, those dumb fuck plebeians should accept what a wonderful thing the elitist douchebags had done for them by murdering the one man in Rome who stood up for them. The plebeians, who were not stupid and understood their own interests, knew better. The patricians believed that they could con the plebs into thinking this was a favor because Caesar was disrupting the norms of Rome. He had been supported by the plebs for exactly this reason. The plebs were more concerned with their survival as Romans than the form of government under which they lived. The result was rioting and blood in the streets.

Caesar had named his successor, his low-born nephew and adopted son Octavian. He had chosen wisely. Octavian skillfully maneuvered his way into power and partnered with Caesar’s right hand man Marc Antony to round up and execute Caesar’s killers. One by one, those weak-wristed nancy boys were either brutally executed or forced to commit suicide. For writing nasty essays about him, Marc Antony had Cicero’s hands chopped off and his tongue cut out, which he then displayed downtown. Eventually, Antony and Octavian turned on each other, with Octavian ultimately winning. When he did, he ruled with total authority, skillfully ratfucking his political opponents and instituting some of the strictest pro-traditional laws in history.

So by all means, libtards, keep talking shit about killing Julius Trump. I know how this story ends, and it doesn’t end well for you. I for one am eager to see it played out with assault rifles and live-streamed on YouTube.

Some Thoughts on Freedom

It’s what separates us from the rest of the world.

Is freedom too much of a burden for people to bear? This is an argument underlying the division between the Left and the Right. I would submit that people should have all the freedom they can manage, which is largely an act of will. People who cannot make decisions for themselves and who would prefer ease or comfort to autonomy can have that. In fact, it’s unavoidable. Those who want freedom should be allowed to have it, and can have to a large degree even if nefarious forces try to deny it. Freedom is essential and as John Locke pointed out, cannot be taken, even by force, by those who ever truly possess it.

The Left is completely incoherent on the subject of freedom, owing largely to the fact that the Left is largely comprised of people who want the most benefit for the least input and who have no qualms about violating the concepts of fairness and reciprocity to achieve it. By this, I mean that liberals want results without work and are content to infringe upon the lives, liberties, and properties of others to get it. They do not mind taking more than their fair share to have life as they want it, and attempt to justify their theft through status whoring and virtue signaling. Freedom, to them, is whatever empowers their agenda and forces others to stay beneath them in social hierarchy. In general the Left believes that people are not really cut out for freedom of conscience, association, faith, and self defense. In other words, all the main areas in which adult humans need to make up their own mind.

Where to begin with their inconsistencies? A teenage girl needs a note from her parents if she misses a day at her mandatory public school, but should not need her parents’ permission to have an abortion. We should not have the right to self-defense, but if we are murdered, the murderer should not be executed because it is inhumane. Teenagers can decide that they are actually the opposite sex from what their chromosomes scientifically make them, but parents do not have the right to tell their kids they do not approve of interracial dating. Gay couples can force a Christian baker to make for a wedding he sees as not only invalid but a repudiation of everything he believes, but college students should be able to use the threat of violence to stop speakers with whom they disagree and might be offended. The Left is completely full of shit.

The examples show a pattern of disregard for others’ freedom. The lives of others do not matter compared to liberals’ need to virtue signal regarding capital punishment. Freedom of religion an association do not apply when liberals disapprove of those beliefs, and liberals will always disagree with religion because they take a Hobbesian view of government. Religion is a competing source of authority with government, and to liberals, this is a serious problem. Gender identity and teenage autonomy weakens family bonds and normal standards of behavior. Families and traditions, again, are a threat to the omnipotence of government. Liberals insist on the primacy of government in all matters as well as their control of said government. This is not simply about power. It’s about extracting resources with minimal effort, even when that extraction violates every possible system of moral exchange. It is inherently immoral because no one would voluntarily agree to such a system of exchange.

Liberals have little need for personal autonomy in many cases as long as their material needs are met. The push for single-payer health is not about “fairness.” It’s about free healthcare so that they can put forth as little effort as possible to receive services. Welfare isn’t about “the children” or “fairness” either. It’s about extracting resources for their reliable voters. The push for “free” college and the “fight for fifteen” is not about fairness, either. Libtards started realizing that a degree in Peruvian Women’s Slant Rhyme Poetry does not qualify one for any job that does not pay more than minimum wage, so the solution is to require a higher wage and not require students to pay for their degrees. In other words, the left requires taxpayers to subsidize universities through theft of their resources, and after giving out a useless product, requires business owners to subsidize the poor decisions of college graduates. Notice that liberals never talk about tougher admissions standards and funding only for certain majors, which though ridiculous and totalitarian would at least take the needs of others into account. Ridiculous social justice majors are needed to justify university indoctrination and make-work for other libtards, and therefore, college students are granted the freedom to choose majors. Certainly though they not granted the freedom to study only what they want. Colleges impose all manner of “liberal arts” requirements and diversity workshops for undergrads, even though it substantially increases the cost in funds and time required to finish a degree. Freedom, in the liberal mindset, is about what benefits them and strokes their egos, not about actual freedom.

The left is vampiric. But how do they justify their draining of resources? By virtue signaling and status whoring. University professors justify their salaries, benefits, and ability to say shockingly stupid things by insisting that they are our intellectual betters (spoiler alert: they aren’t). Activists justify their extraction by insisting that they are “speaking truth to power” Even baristas at Starbucks justify their desire to help themselves to your money by having the “correct” social and political views that allow them to glom onto the party doing the thieving. They aren’t just virtue signaling to try to make themselves look good in publc. They are signaling to the people doing the heavy lifting that they are part of the tribe and therefore entitled to some of the spoils.

Some people are perfectly content to give up substantial freedoms in exchange for material gain, even when that gain is shortsighted. This would happen even in the absence of heavy-handed government. Imagine there was no government compulsion in much of anything. Even then, some people would rely on the nice rep from the insurance company to pick their coverage levels, the nice bot from Amazon to recommend their purchases, their parents to do all of the difficult paperwork or bill paying while they freeload in the basement. Some people are content to live in such a way, but as long as the rest of us are not forced to subsidize it and are allowed to shame such people, society can survive. The second all of these things became “rights” which we had to both pay for and celebrate, they stopped being the freedom of some and started being the enslavement of all.

For those who desire freedom, it is not a burden. Freedom is simply the ability to make one’s own decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions. Free people are happier people because they know their own role in their situations and have the satisfaction of having created their situation through their own choosing. Freedom is not just a blessing, it is necessary to live a full life. The finest explanation of this comes from Rudyard Kipling:

“If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!”

That is the essence of freedom. He who can do these things is beholden to none in his heart, and is therefore free. Notice that much of this is about mental and spiritual well-being, not material well-being. It is true that much of morality depends upon a full stomach. Is not freedom the benefit of success, and is it not likewise what fuel’s success? Make no mistake about what is on the table here: If the Left is allowed to keep doing what it has been doing for the last century, your descendants will be slaves at best and absorbed into someone else’s culture at worst. You and your heirs will have taken the last step into a thousand years of darkness. Act accordingly.

Abortion and Gun Rights: A Comparison

Similar concerns and tactics from opposing sides.

If you want to understand how the left feels about abortion, look at the way we feel about gun control. This is a good analogy because a lot of the tactics on both sides regarding these issues are similar. So are the suspicions we have about the opposition, and so are the end goals of the opposition. When it comes to guns, we start with the premise that the left is ultimately trying to eliminate all firearms so as to better subdue us. This is undeniably true as many proponents of so-called “common sense” gun laws let the mask slip occasionally and make it clear that they want to take them all. Even if this is not the case, and you run across some Lefty-lite who legitimately only wants to put a few restrictions on gun purchasing or ownership, the fact remains that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed and that there is no reason to prohibit law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms when criminals are able to achieve them readily. We therefore reject any attempt to limit our access to firearms because we know that the standard goal of these people is the complete elimination thereof.

The pro-abortion camp comes from a similar premise with similar standards of behavior. They know good and well that the ultimate goal for the vast majority of conservatives is to completely outlaw abortion. We are willing to take an incremental approach the same way they do in regarding gun rights. We are perfectly willing to restrict access to abortion to the point where it is extremely difficult, nigh impossible to obtain. Our strict regulations for abortion facilities, waiting periods, and time limits are mean to significantly reduce the number of abortions performed each year. Of course, the government does not fund gun stores like it does Planned Parenthood, but one could make the argument that the government funds arms manufacturers through military purchases, which enables them to sell similar products to the public. The design of those produces was funded through taxes. I don’t want to get off topic, but this is an apples-and-oranges argument because arming troops is a necessity, abortions are not.

Abortion enthusiasts are willing to do the same with guns. Waiting periods, attempts to limit arsenals or monthly purchases, attempts to severely tax ammunition, you name it, they’ll try it. The goal is to greatly reduce gun ownership. They argue that outlawing abortions will send women to back alleys. This could very likely be true, but I for one don’t give a shit. Murdering babies is the kind of wicked shit that should be done in the same venue where drug dealers and prostitutes ply their trades. In a similar fashion, we argue that if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns. This, too is demonstrably true. Even countries with virtually no legal gun ownership suffer terrorist attacks from people with automatic weapons. We see self-defense as an inherent right, and they see personal protection as something that for the good of all must be outsourced to the government (they see pretty much everything as something to be outsourced to the government, except abortion). We see abortion as murder of innocents, they see it as a woman’s right to control reproduction (the rights of the father and child being subordinate, because, grrl power!). The baby-killing lobby resists our efforts tooth and nail because they know what our ultimate goal is just as we know what their ultimate goal is. This is why both sides are so uncompromising on these issues.

There is another similarity, one which is rarely spoken of, but let me go ahead and break ranks to discuss it. The fact of the matter is, neither side really wants to be a one hundred percent successful. Look around at the Left. They are all talking about getting guns to resist the Trump administration. They have John Brown gun clubs. They have been fully willing to resort to other deadly weapons outside of guns, not due to lack of access, but rather because they are harder to trace. So the left is obviously not against all violence and not against the use of firearms to achieve their goals. They just suck at using them as the Alexandria shooting last week demonstrated. Likewise, are we really that strongly against abortion? I know the idea horrifies me. I know I would be deeply ashamed of any women in my family having one, and I know I would never support aborting any of my unborn children. That being said, do I really get broken up about the idea of inner city minorities and womynists whacking their babies in the womb? Does it really keep me up at night to know there will not be a future generation of welfare recipients, rapists, murderers, and lame-ass campus revolutionaries? No, not really. And if we’re being honest, the vast majority of people, including liberals, aren’t that broken up by it either. When most of us think of a on getting an abortion, we think of fellow white suburbanites. We think of people of similar background with similar values and who are part of our tribe. The idea of killing the unborn children of our tribe rightly sickens and disgusts us. We feel natural, healthy feelings of protection for children. If we thought about who is actually getting abortions, meaning minorities and liberal women, and we consider the fact that we are enemies at war with these people, it is really them eliminating their next generation of their constituents. If they want to do it for us, even if it is in a ghastly manner because killing children is inherently disgusting, maybe we should not stand in their way. Our people by and large do not have abortions because there is something about the Right that is inherently supportive and loving when it comes to having children. There are exceptions, but we by and large embrace a culture of life, or at least one of survival.

Since most of us do not consider these people to be our countrymen, it should not necessarily be our concern what they do with their own children, even if we find the practice disgusting and look down on them for it. The Romans’ archrivals, the Carthaginians, routinely practiced child sacrifice. The Romans despised them for it, and judged the Carthaginians (rightly) to be a degenerate, inherently fucked-up people. Yet, they did not try to stop them from practicing child sacrifice. Unless you consider obliterating their culture a means of stopping it. I do not as stopping child sacrifice was not the reason for Carthage’s destruction. My point is that as abhorrent as abortion is, it is one thing for us to prohibit it among our people and another to prohibit it among an alien people. Our problem is that we are share a land and a government with alien tribes, and until further action is taken we have to argue with them over such policies.

Sidenote: If there is a Left winger you feel the need to argue with, you can always use the standard line of out guns they use about abortions which is if you don’t like them don’t have them.