On the Left is anybody who attempts arguments from ignorance and stupidity against me.
>
Imperia dura tolle: quid virtus erit?< Obici feris monstrisque virtutem putas?
> Virtutis est domare quae cuncti pavent.
< Tenebrae loquentem magna Tartareae premunt.
> Non est ad astra mollis e terris via.
<
Quo patre genitus caelitum sperat domos?
As a student of words, I do not use words randomly:degenerate < L.
degener, ‘inferior to your ancestors, who would choose abortion if they could see you now; downfallen in (
genetic) quality’, <
de-, ‘
away from’ +
genus, ‘
birth (in the sense of family), origin, class, species/race’, from the same root as
gens, ‘tribe, clan,
family’.
The source of my disgust should be readily apparent to anyone who has ever observed the tenacity with which all healthy female viviparous creatures struggle over asperities in a gravid state—or who has seen the grief borne by women who suffer spontaneous abortions (also known as miscarriages).
To propose as lighthearted comedy that everybody should just fuck, fuck, fuck and abort the results is definitionally
degenerate.
Now, to avoid a red herring: I am not arguing the abortion issue as it is misperceived in modern American politics. Indeed,
I think that abortion should be legal (perhaps even mandatory) for exactly the types of people who want it.Just call that evolution in action, the culling of weakness and sickness: Women who choose to abort their young are
ipso facto unfit to have young. It is one of those self-solving, or at least self-limiting problems—like suicide cults, which I also think should be legal—and like drugs, which should be legalized
pronto!—combined with the exclusion of known drug users from all health insurance, welfare, and assistance with food and housing. Drug abuse would quickly prove itself to be a strictly self-limiting problem.
Druggies, don’t whine. I am supporting your freedom to kill yourselves!
Being not a Christian, of course I am not inclined to weep for the souls of the poor little babies who, if they ever could have attained consciousness, should be
grateful never to have been born to such degenerate, manifestly unfit mothers as would kill them in the womb.
Do you suitably inform females of that attitude of yours before you do anything that has any nonzero probability of causing pregnancy?
Yes, and I make them sign a standard waiver as well. Out of curiosity, do you always refer to women as
females? I heard they think that's, like, really hot.
The use of the word “female” is now politically incorrect? I didn’t get the memo.
My insistence that females damn well have a right to know your attitude toward abortion,
before you bring your male gametes anywhere near them, is interpreted by you as somehow derogatory or disrespectful to
them?It is a question of informed consent.For my part, I have discovered empirically that my sincere willingness to
take mature adult responsibility in the event of unplanned pregnancy is indeed “really hot”. Women go wild for that! It is as if after so much annoyance from boys who are just desperate to stick it in, they have discovered
a man.
One who will not flake out, run away, or
(cringe!) pressure her for an abortion, if the moment’s passion turns out to have permanent consequences.
Really hot. Like, “
please yes, let’s now take about a one-in-a-million risk of contraceptive failure, because I’m anyway secretly fantasizing about having your babies” level of hotness.
If you can’t cope with that,
#gohomo.
Oh, and if you are not sufficiently mature even to raise these types of grown-up discussions, then you should not be having sex.
In re CommunismI have been calling Trump a Communist for about the past five years. I tossed out that thing about the history of Antifa while I was working on a cartoon about Orange Dolt Kerensky (R) versus Senile Dementia Lenin (D). (To be posted, after I finish the accompanying text.)
I identify things as they are. If you are too asinine to understand, that is your problem. I only debate my peers—although on occasion, Internet flotsam may provide an opportune rhetorical opening for something that I wanted to write anyway on grounds of,
Imperia dura tolle...Recently, I also almost used my standard metaphor of describing second-century Christian groups as Antifas. It is basically what they were: Proto-Communist agitators who, in their case, were renegades against the established order of Judaism. And the Sermon on the Mount is a v0.1 SJW rant. As I have previously remarked, Marx didn’t really invent much; he simply systematized a social pathology that has recurred at various times in history, and integrated it with the modern democratic
Zeitgeist into an economically-minded worldview centred on the primacy of
Capital.
And because I know political concepts from first principles, it was
before I saw the below images floating around on the Internet that I wrote an analysis (not posted) of
Cuties as Communist propaganda. I wrote that based on what its defenders say about it,
not what its detractors say (and I have not seen the film).
(Who is that angry-looking orange-haired man in the background? I can’t quite see the details. Well, I suppose it’s nothing.)Either movie set designers—who, as professional storytellers, work semiotics as their jobs—have taken up the habit of painting arbitrary political symbols in the backgrounds of their scenes for no reason whatsoever—or I know Marxism when I see it.
It was at the time that I posted this, for anyone with a critical artistic eye:
Subject: [WO] UgliesA few hours after this:
My post history has plenty of observations about Communism going back to when I was at Newbie rank, but I need not reach that far.
So noted, just so that people realize that I have been quite consistent about this since long before I caught the ire of an apologist for Communism who apparently can’t stand to see things identified for what they are.
Robots, please hurry up! This state of affairs is intolerable.
Poll
