I have always loathed abortion. From both a Christian perspective, Baptist specifically, and just general moral standpoint, I have always hated it. The killing of infants never sat well with me. Being raised Republican, though now no longer a supporter of the GOP, I have spent the entirety of my existence listening to these Southern Republican politicians, who only get elected because of my and my kinfolk’s demographic, the White, Southern working-class, wax poetically about their stances against aborting babies. Of course, they never actually did do anything about it.
Well, it finally happened. The GOP legislature of Mississippi, under former Governor Phil Bryant, approved a heartbeat bill and passed it in 2018, meant to go into effect in 2019. It was blocked by a fat Negro communist, Carlton W. Reeves, appointed by Obama who stands as the premier United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. By some stroke of luck, the faggoty GOP rulers of that state actually grew a pair and brought the case all the way to SCOTUS. As I am sure you, dear reader, have heard by now, the court supposedly stands to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973, thereby allowing abortion to be handled at the state level.
As may be expected, I fully support its overturning. Aside from saving the lives of true innocents at the hands of promiscuous women, this does carry some benefits. By far the greatest fallout will most likely result in further balkanization between conservative and liberal states, possibly persuading many of these psychotic, anti-White, anti-Southern leftist weirdos from moving to the South. This most likely will not deter them from their carpetbagging ways, but it is still good to have hope.
All of that said, there is one little caveat in all of this uproar which I have noticed is currently flying under the radar, yet it has been a Republican strategy for years now. This is something so abhorrent, yet predictable, that I could not help but write this little article. The GOP has come out with one of the gayest, anti-White takes of them all in the name of pro-life values. Immediately after this uproar started, Candace Owens, everyone’s favorite Republican grifter Negress spokeswoman, appeared as a guest on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show and ranted about how abortion is awful for the sole reason that it “targets” minority groups. This is obviously not true. Furthermore, she often touts that abortion primarily effects non-White populations. This is questionable. My own life experiences, and the lack of having seen consistent enough statistics on the demographics, lead to this argument’s questionable validity. Candace Owens herself comes off as a Bill Buckley Jr. type figure whose sole purpose is to undermine conservative narratives from the inside. Her past is shady, and I would recommend not believing a word she says.
What do these claims mean, exactly? The GOP is blatantly telling you that it cares not for White children whatsoever. Its primary concern is combatting abortion primarily in Negro and Hispanic neighborhoods. They could not care less if your White children die. Do with all of this information what you will.
As a further footnote, though polls tend to misconstrue political opinions towards the Left, they have consistently shown that support for abortion actually peaked during the 1990s. It has declined quite a bit over the past 30 years, despite propaganda asserting it is more popular than ever. I have some ideas on why this is. Setting aside the fact that most within the anti-infanticide, pro-life crowd hold the position because of a Christian or moral foundation of some kind, I do believe that an alarmingly growing proportion of men, and possibly a handful of conservative minded mothers, have taken up the pro-life stance out of spite against modern American women, particularly of the Millennial and Gen Z variety. Let’s be real here, young females today, often from the middle-class in my experience, are some of the most entitled, annoying, decadent, and rude people you can encounter now. Normally, we expect those within dissident circles to make such bold claims, but it has gotten to a point where most normie men in my generation also feel this way, from virgins to womanizers and from varying walks of life. It would not be too farfetched to arrive at the conclusion that modern young men really do not like modern young women very much. I could go on about this topic, but that is an article for another day, just some food for thought.
There is not much else to say here. The GOP has found a way to take an objectively good thing and make it anti-White. If you still believe the GOP is the ”lesser of two evils” or “better than the other side,” I truly cannot help you.
Oh well, take the wins while you can. We do not get very many.
“The White people of the South are the greatest minority in this nation. They deserve consideration and understanding instead of the persecution of twisted propaganda.” –Strom Thurmond
Good to keep in mind that the scotus flip on abortion came after the racial breakdown on cases became common knowledge. Also keep in mind that they only record the race of the mother, many of whom will be carrying mixed babies.
The way I see it is if someone white is anti-abortion at this point, then they are ok with subsidizing the breeding of a future army of mystery meats to take up arms against their/our own children someday. I guess they’re just better Christians than I am, but I still haven’t found any clear prohibition of abortion in the Bible but I am supposed to believe it is the greatest sin in America, surpassing all those other sins that are mentioned in the Bible. Maybe somebody here can explain it to me.
The Carthaginians believed in child sacrifice (infanticide) and were righteously destroyed by the Romans, although the Romans had their own unethical views on discarding unwanted children. In fact, the early Church was able to grow by fishing out infants thrown into Roman rivers.
If you believe diverting some potential race war by condoning the murder of children will absolve you in the Christian faith, I would recommend online racial paganism because this ain’t it.
Calling me a pagan, or any other attack on the sincerity of my faith, does not change the obvious reality we face or the obvious endorsements of infanticide in the Bible. Just because you didn’t learn it in children’s church doesn’t mean it’s not true. The Christian walk is a journey. That means you need to be willing to revise your beliefs when needed, as it is impossible to grow wiser without doing so. I’ll be praying about your denial problem but it will help if you pray about it too.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
—Leo Tolstoy
Color me shocked, I wasn’t aware that the Good Book advocated for the murder of children. Is that version available in a second-hand store?
Read as many versions as you like for free:
https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/15-3.htm
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/13-16.htm
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/13-18.htm
https://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm
This one doesn’t explicitly include infants but it sounds like the most reasonable assumption to me.
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/13-15.htm
And while we’re at it, what is the Fifth Commandment if not an endorsement of honor killing? (Some newer versions say “prolonged” but I suspect they are just trying to toe the line with the PC Narrative.)
https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-12.htm
Please let me know if you can come up with a plausible alternative interpretation. So far I have come across one dissident (obviously not ordained) minister who tackles this verse at face value, concluding that it is not required for parents to honor-kill their own children, but to shun them and leave them at the hands of nonfamily to do the job. I have never in my life heard a pop preacher tackle this verse in any substantial way.
In the end the choice is yours to either admit the truth or spend the rest of your life making a fool of yourself. (And if you presume to teach, you will be judged more severely. https://biblehub.com/james/3-1.htm) I chose to admit the truth and I hope you and other readers do to. I am going to skip my wine tonight and explicitly pray for you, Haven Monahan, and for other readers of this website that you will all have the will and strength come to terms with the truth, to at least mentally align yourselves as dissident Christians on this topic, even if you have to keep your mouth shut about it in meatspace for the time being. If I return to see any sign that you or others have done so, I will be happy to share some other taboo Christian beliefs.
Bill Hill:
Two things I’d really like to know, sir, having read and contemplated what you wrote above: (1) how many *living* children do you have left? And, (2), and relatedly, how many of your (previously living) children have you personally murdered in obedience to your (f*cked up and rogue) interpretation of the 5th Commandment? This *would be* very close to a joke for me, but it isn’t funny, and I’ll nevertheless patiently await your honest reply. What are you – the Diane Downs of “Christian Mohammedanism,” or what?
A third thing: can you cite for me, please, such an interpretation as your belief on this subject that the Church (The Body of Christ) ever taught or endorsed during its first 1,800-plus years of its 1,900-plus years of existence? (I grant that the dumbass Methodists endorsed aborifacient “family planning” before it became a widespread denominational acceptance, but anyway).
So far I have no children, but that is something I would like to change. Obviously, it is not incompatible with fecundity because Mohammedans who do practice honor killing (by family members) are indeed increasing in numbers and are outbreeding Westerners. They also don’t have the mudsharking problem we do. But I would lean toward simply shunning the offender if it ever came down to it, and I doubt it would come to it.
Now, dear Sir, I have a few questions for you (or anyone else):
1) What is your interpretation of the 5th Commandment?
2) How is honor killing substantially different from capital punishment decided by a randomly selected jury?
3) I dare not ask the third question.
Re the third thing you requested:
I am not aware of any such church precedent, and I have never looked. But that doesn’t mean anything as far as I can tell.
It occurs to me that there are other instances of infanticide which God Himself did:
1) the killing of Egypt’s firstborn, some of which must have been infants.
2) having the earth swallow Korah’s rebels, including their households, some of which must have been children.
I simply cannot accept that allowing our enemies to kill their own children (who would someday take up arms against our own children) is some major moral failure on our part. I can’t even accept it as a minor moral failure on our part. I can’t even see it as anything less than GOOD PARENTING on our part. Do you not want to keep your children safe? Do you not want what is best for them after you are gone?
Bill, first, thanks for the replies to my queries. Second, I’ll answer yours in the order in which you asked them.
(1) My interpretation of the 5th Commandment is certainly not that it gives a parent or other relative license to murder his own offspring and flesh & blood if and when one or more of them dishonors the family and family name. I might be the judge and jury of a wayward child of mine, but I’m not his/her executioner in the sense of determining the date and time and manner of his death. That is up to God, not me. The natural interpretation of the commandment is that God and/or nature itself will punish serial violators of the command; that the very nature of the thing virtually guarantees that the offender will engage in self-destructive, self-annihilation practices that will ultimately shorten his or her life unless (s)he comes to her senses and redeems herself.
(2) As you note, “honor killings,” so called, are performed by family members upon other family members whose crimes may or may not deserve death. There is nothing “random” about jury selection, btw, but even if there were, the obvious difference is that “a jury of his peers” (or, rather, a judge) is never pronouncing summary judgment upon the accused – I mean, once the death penalty is pronounced, the offender isn’t immediately taken out into the alley behind the court house and shot, although that would certainly be warranted in some cases (e.g. Ted Bundy, et al). Point is (and this is not a blanket endorsement of the jury system, mind you), a jury has the opportunity to (cooly) hear testimony and evidence for and against, and to base its judgment on a “preponderance of the evidence.” Whereas,…
You wrote:
Actually, it does mean something. If roughly 2,000 years of Church history and tradition on this or any other matter isn’t telling you something meaningful about the way you should conduct yourself as a Christian in spite of yourself otherwise, you’d probably do well to reassess your position. What I’m getting about is that when you find yourself in complete disagreement and out of step with 1,900 years of Church doctrine, and/or scriptural interpretation, on a matter, you’re getting very close to embracing, if not in fact embracing, an heretical position borne of gnosticism if not something worse.
You wrote:
Of course. I can name several others. e.g. when God destroyed all humanity save eight souls with the flood. Obviously there were infants and old people and pregnant women, etc., at that time. NB in any case that He did not – even though He certainly could have empowered him to do so – tell Noah and his sons to “kill everybody you see, especially pregnant women and newborn babies, for their thoughts are evil continually.” Another example either of us could cite is when He destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah. Same thing with regard to Abraham. In other words, ‘give unto God that which is God’s.’
You wrote:
Of course I do. Which is why I have been a strong advocate for placing a strict moratorium on immigration for … over twenty years. I’m not just talking about a moratorium on immigration on a national scale either; I’m talking about at the state and local level, primarily. As I’ve said many many times and repeat for the thousandth time, I don’t really give two hoots or a holler about what anyone in the rest of the world does, or what Yankeedom does, for that matter. I oppose Roe in particular because it affects my state and my people. It’s bad law because it’s not law to start with, it’s a court decision, nothing more. But we’ve gotten into this habit of looking upon American “federal” courts as defacto legislative bodies and the “last word” on constitutional principles. They’re not!
Moreover, I was talking publicly about the problems inherent to so called 14th Amendment “Birthright Citizenship” – i.e., granting automatic birthright citizenship to American-born children of aliens and/or foreigners subject to a foreign jurisdiction (illegal immigrants, for example, but legal ones too) – way before virtually anyone else was talking about it. And I’ll keep talking about it too, because, not only am I concerned for the future of my children, but for the future of their children as well. In revealing this to you and everyone else reading this, I’m not looking for credit; I’m trying to explain that, while Stephen Miller was still in grade school (well, maybe while he was still in middle school, but anyway), I was on the frontlines of this issue – getting the information out to everyone I could think of to get it out to and then some, Congressmen, Senators, governors, “conservative” political pundits and so on. Why? Well, because the cheapening of U.S. citizenship by virtue of misinterpretation and misapplication of the citizenship principles of the 14th Amendment, was a thing I simply could not ignore or “sit on” for the sake of my children and (then) future grandchildren, regardless of the chance I was taking of being hunted down like a dog for getting the information out there.
Well, anyway, you wrote:
Full disclosure: “mudsharking” has never been a problem for my little brood, but, one of my daughters did “go her own way” for a time, and defied me at every turn. I warned her for a year that, “if you keep doing what you’re doing, you’re going to leave me with no other choice than to send you away.” The interesting thing was that, of all of my children, she is the one I would have least expected it from. In any case, two days after her 17th birthday, I did in fact send her away. Not only did I send her away, I banished her from having any direct contact with the family – her family of origin. Long story short, it took her four years to come back to her milk, but she did come back. Meanwhile, I was catching it from virtually all sides; I even had family members threatening to call CPS on me for sending her away to start with. All of which time I stood there like a stone wall, never flinching. This had to be done in her case; there was no other option left me that had a snowball’s chance in hell of working; she has five younger siblings whose well-being had to be taken into consideration as well. Suffice to say there isn’t a single one of them who believes for a second that ol’ dad would turn a “blind eye” to certain kinds of misbehavior and defiance of me on their parts. That is one reason their elder sister had to be made the example of. On the other hand, they also all know that “honor killing” is never an option for us since of course we all already know that God will turn them over to reprobate minds and thereby shorten their lives in His own time and at His own good pleasure, should they choose that option and to stick with it.
You said:
“Which is why I have been a strong advocate for placing a strict moratorium on immigration for … over twenty years. I’m not just talking about a moratorium on immigration on a national scale either; I’m talking about at the state and local level, primarily.”
Thank you.
Re honor killing/shunning:
I am going to let you have the last word here.
But one of your replies raises another question. You said:
“What I’m getting about is that when you find yourself in complete disagreement and out of step with 1,900 years of Church doctrine, and/or scriptural interpretation, on a matter, you’re getting very close to embracing, if not in fact embracing, an heretical position borne of gnosticism if not something worse.”
What if the past 1900 years of Church doctrine/Scriptural interpretation on a topic *is* Gnostic in origin? What if Christian men and women have been duped for over a thousand years into a provably false doctrine? What if we had (mainly from the Reformation onward) extensive history of harsh censorship (defrocking of clergy, burning books, spreading lies, etc) of anyone who pointed out the error? What if someone could prove that the Protestant Reformation is still incomplete in a way so big that the vast majority of Christian men just couldn’t handle it when faced with it? (Unless all their friends go first and they simply follow like sheep.) What if the paradigm shift is easily worth millions of dollars to each of your children, grandchildren, etc; the family I hope to start; and for virtually every one of our pro-Dixie compatriots? What if a silver lining to present day Clownworld is that it may permit us an unprecedented opportunity? (A really big one, but only if we get our thinking right to make good use of it!)
Would you be open to it even if it goes against Church history or traditional interpretation of Scripture? Would you commit to give it serious study before recoiling and rejecting it? If the answer is “Yes, I would” then please send your shipping address to billhill85@tutanota.com and I’ll send you some study materials at my expense.
(No, it is not related to Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism or New Age Movement and it is only related to paganism in that it unpacks pagan doctrine that most Western Christians believe.)
Thanks for the offer, Bill. Yes, I’m intrigued, and would be willing to give your information serious study and reflection, but am, as I’m sure you understand, reticent to share my email and mailing addresses with anyone whom I essentially do not know from Adam. Are you, for example, a member of any of our chat groups, and/or have you been properly vetted by any of our members and invited into said group(s)? If so, I’m not aware of it; if not, then our exchanging personal information like that will have to wait till a later date. But, again, thanks for the consideration and the offer.
-TM
*do too