idw.community
3 6

"They will perform child sacrifice and it will be celebrated" - Jack Posobiec

Its true. You just wait. Degenerate woke lefties. Remember when they proposed killing unwanted children after they are born?

Virginia Governor Defends Killing Babies After They’re Born

Here's the quote: “If a mother is in labor… the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother,” if she wants to eliminate.

And that as parents you should have no rights over your child they belong to state. Like Scotland and NYC claim.

So weather its woke retards telling their children to chose their "gender" and go be mutilated by some butcher pretending to be a clinic. Killing babies in the womb or jabbing the healthy children with god knows what at age 5 or older, with no parent's knowledge or consent. The blood thirst of the lefty lunatics knows no bounds.

It took 12 years to go from "safe, legal and rare" to this. If you think by next 10 years at this pace they would not be sacrificing live children for some cult lunacy, think again.

Krunoslav 9 Sep 19
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

The quote from the Northam had an interesting timeline. He said the quiet part out loud and within 8 hours there was the furor over him in black face. Months of non constructive noise to cover up what he said.

They had to have had the story ready for release in case a bad story had to be buried. It implies there are similar "flurry stories" ready to go for a lot of people when a coverup is needed.

2

I detest abortion, but for libertarian reasons, I cannot impress my personal feelings about it on someone else. Yeah, go ahead and lambast me over that, but when we're talking moral foundations, liberty is my strongest and it's largely one of the reasons I'm not conservative.

But having said that, I think to celebrate abortion is an appalling lack of ethics. And it stuns me to think that there are people out there that would never think of bashing a puppy's head in with a rock, but yet have no issues with a surgeon jamming a needle into a fetus' skull and sucking out its contents.

For me, it is merely another reminder that the progressive Left does not see value in the individual. To them, the important thing is the group and your compliance with your group. It is the group that matters, not the person. And so, if the group proclaims that your child should die because of a defect that will likely lead to significant medical costs, then that's the group's decision and what you have to say on it really doesn't matter. The lovely paradox of "healthcare is an inalienable human right" coupled with, "but only for the people we deem to be worthy."

"I detest abortion, but for libertarian reasons, I cannot impress my personal feelings about it on someone else."

Strange argument. What about father? And more importantly what about the fact that abortion on scale we see is suicide of the nation. Forget morality, its just destructive on the most fundamental level. And who pays for it? Taxpayers. Directly for the process of abortion itself, or indirectly to support women who marry the state. If state, that is to say taxpayers did not support women, and women would depend on the father, than they would choose men who are responsible fathers and that in turn would provide environment for children to grow up in healthy environment. And that is the future of the nation. This is part of the evolutionary process that got us here in the first pace. To try to destroy that is to destroy oneself. As it is evident in country like United States that is no longer united and its tearing itself apart.

Furthermore if the state can legally give power to women and not both parents, it can go the other way too, as in china and indeed California with forced abortions.

...................................................

M. King Hubbert (co-founder of Technocracy, Inc. in 1934).

"It is not a stretch to correlate Hubbert’s vision to modern implementation of Functional Sequences such as health care (Obamacare), control over water (Army Corps of Engineers), land (Councils of Governments), agricultural practices (Bureau of Land Management), education (Common Core), energy (Department of Energy, Smart Grid), transportation (Metropolitan Planning Organizations), emergency management (FEMA) and so on. Not long ago, all of these functions were under local or personal control within the context of traditional geographic boundaries such as cities, towns, counties and states. A town, for instance, had a locally-elected school board that set education policy for itself. Emergency management was managed by a fire board or city council. Land use was determined by an elected zoning board.

Hubbert’s above reference to “institutions for defectives” is disturbing and shows evidence of his strong views on eugenics as a necessary Functional Sequence. Apparently, the inefficiencies of defectives and their high cost of maintenance are not to be tolerated in a system that strives for perfect efficiency. In California, where Technocracy, Inc. found its largest support, eugenics was in its heyday during the 1930s where over 20,000 men, women and children were deemed defective and were subsequently sterilized by force. This is a dark history of California, by the way, but I can personally attest to the reality of it. This writer was adopted at birth by a woman who had been forcibly sterilized because her older brother was deemed to be genetically “retarded”. A few years later, it was determined that her brother was not retarded at all, but had been deprived of oxygen at birth, thus producing brain damage. An investigative article written in 2012 by CNN Health stated,

Thirty-two states had eugenics programs, but California was in a league of its own… In California, the eugenics movement was led by figures such as David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, and Harry Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times…. California’s movement was so effective that in the 1930s, members of the Nazi party asked California eugenicists for advice on how to run their own sterilization program. ”Germany used California’s program as its chief example that this was a working, successful policy,” Cogdell said. “They modeled their law on California’s law.”

Shamefully for California, its eugenics and forced sterilization program continued to operate until 1963. On a national and global scale, eugenics is still alive and well, most often associated with the population control policies put forth by Agenda 21."

Technocracy rising - the Trojan horse of global transformation, 2014 by Patrick M. Wood

....................................................

Nazis went even further by having doctors singing who will be killed based on undesirable characteristics. This is how it started. Forced sterilization and doctors killing handicapped patients. Same time as California by the way. Than it went to concentration and extermination camps for anyone they did not like.

In America abortion is big business. And what do you think happens with baby body parts? They are not thrown away, they are sold. Since the 1970's when you combine chemical and old fashion abortions there has been over 600 mil of them. That is double the population of USA. Eugenics and nations suicide. And its only getting worse.

But even if you forget all that. There is a liberty in not actually getting pregnant. I'm all for women having a choice, just before the fact. There is simply no rational or moral way to justice commodification of abortion. It is madness.

And it has nothing to do with liberty.

"I detest abortion, but for libertarian reasons, I cannot impress my personal feelings about it on someone else"

It's not as simple as you imply. Its not really about some random individual woman contemplating abortion. There is the human life in her womb. I think of that human being as the central figure in this matter.
The one most vulnerable - the one in dire peril - the one who cannot speak for himself...

@iThink @Krunoslav

What you are both essentially saying is, "why aren't you a conservative like us?"

And as I tried to explain, it's because my moral foundation for liberty is far stronger than any of my other moral foundations. Why? It just is. You might as well ask me why I don't like hetchup on my french fries. I don't know; I just don't. Some things just are the way they are.

That you don't understand why I think this way only means that you do not have a libertarian mindset. And that's okay. I won't criticize you for it, as you've elected to criticize me.

@Alysandir "And as I tried to explain, it's because my moral foundation for liberty is far stronger than any of my other moral foundations. "

Like I said you are following religion which outsources morality to the religion itself. If I self identify as a liberal I don't have to worry about morals, since liberalism is the most moral religion. One true faith.

Its the common problem with liberalism. It cannot understand its own flaws because its not about liberty at all, its about religious belief in myth as revealed by libertarianism.

I criticize all libertarians because they are enablers to all far greater destructive religions. Like communism.

@Krunoslav

Its the common problem with liberalism. It cannot understand its own flaws because its not about liberty at all, its about religious belief in myth as revealed by libertarianism.

So I just got told by someone who has never been a libertarian what libertarianism is and why it is bad. Do you see a fundamental problem with that logic? I do. For your next trick, why don't you tell me what it's like to be a woman?

See...this is why I cannot support conservatives any more than I can support progressives, because you BOTH have this dogma that you rely on that cannot be questioned, it must only be obeyed, and if you don't obey it you're doing something wrong and need to be corrected. Neither conservatives nor progressives seem to understand the inherent flaws in their dogma, much less acknowledge them. Libertarians can at least acknowledge that our system has flaws because we largely don't have dogma, only guiding principles that we attempt to apply in any given situation. Why do we not have a dogma? Because we understand that morality is an individual thing, whereas you both want it to be a group thing, irrespective of whether it truly represents the group.

As a libertarian, I realize that every single question of morality must be taken on an individual basis, because A) every person dealing with the question is a unique individual with a unique life experience and a unique background, and B) because every circumstance to be questioned is unique, and cannot be lumped into one summary judgment (if A then B).

Back to my original point, you see me as flawed and lacking in conviction because I refuse to FORCE someone else to my point-of-view; I have not lived their life, I do not know their situation, I do not know every detail of that situation that gives it nuance.

Abortion is wrong you say? I think it a greater sin to force a mother to die carrying a child to term that cannot be born alive and poses a fatal risk to the mother. I think most conservatives would agree with that: that if the child cannot live and poses a risk to the mother's life, then it is right to abort it when it is still safe to do so.

But wait...how can that be if abortion is inherently wrong? Because there was nuance in this occasion that any rational, compassionate person can understand and support. Believe it or not, damn near EVERY situation has the possibility of mitigating nuance.

But wait....if there is nuance in this one occasion, is it not possible that there is nuance in other occasions? Well of course, and conservatives have tried to identify what they think are acceptable nuances to support abortion, such as rape and incest.

Where we disagree is that conservatives believe it is their right to broadly define the exceptions to apply to everyone unilaterally, irrespective of each occasion's unique circumstances. In other words, "Okay, we'll accept you doing something we don't like if it's A, B, or C, but if it's anything else - including things we never thought about - well, too bad for you, we aren't going to allow that."

I say EVERY situation is unique and you cannot force people to follow your dogma that you've convinced yourself is fair and equitable, because you can't account for all the different permutations that life presents us with. Forcing people to live by your rules is no different than progressives forcing people to obey their pronouns, or "bake the cake bigot," or "I demand to be allowed in female spaces because I identify as a woman." You mock and scorn those who do this - and rightfully so, I do as well - but you ignore the fact that YOU DO IT AS WELL. Hell, you justify doing it as being "morally correct," irrespective of whether its either moral or correct to the situation. You play the averages, thinking, "well, if we can be right most of the time, we simply have to live with those occasions where we weren't right at all. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it has to be." Bullshit. That's someone's life you're impacting by not being right; just because you're not affected by it doesn't mean you haven't committed a grave injustice to someone.

Granted, a truly libertarian society cannot really exist; a society must have some common rules that it must abide by if it's going to function at all. So we are not lawless, nor do we inherently ignore the rules that we do not agree with. What libertarians do is weigh the pros and cons: if we do not follow this rule, is it worth the price we must pay? If it is not, we follow the law, little as we like it. And if it is, we risk the penalty of breaking the law.

And that's an important distinction that neither conservatives or progressives truly understand about libertarians: we aren't anarchists, we are simply people who believe every situation must be weighed and considered as a unique situation, and that there is no immorality to violating an unjust law. But at the same time, we own the consequences of our actions, something that I frequently observe both the Left and Right refusing to do, because they think their dogma justifies their actions and protects them from consequence. Again, I say bullshit.

So in summary I'll simply say this: you may not be a libertarian, nor may you ever be a libertarian, but you could stand to learn something from us instead of summarily rejecting us.

@Alysandir "So I just got told by someone who has never been a libertarian what libertarianism is and why it is bad. Do you see a fundamental problem with that logic? I do. For your next trick, why don't you tell me what it's like to be a woman? "

What?

That makes ZERO sense. I'm not talking about feelings, but facts. I don't claim or need to make the claim I FEEL what it is to be Liberian or woman to criticize ideology or behavior or a woman.

It seems to me that problem of classical liberalism even before it became what we might call modern liberalism was not in the area of rights, but in the area of responsibilities.

Liberalism as a philosophy gets things correct when it comes to legal rights or private property, rule of law, tight to fair trial etc. But it deliberate tries to "liberate" itself from assigning shared moral code. it say that no institution should impose morals on the individuals. They must choose for themselves. Its not that liberalism say there is no such thing as right or wrong, but it insists there are no previous moral ties to any moral norms of the past and its up the individual to liberate himself from those moral ties and therefore come up with his own morality.

Unfortunately because liberalism require the power of the state to secure legal rights, it is at the same time saying that individual can exist on to its own in theory. free and liberated from previous moral ties and traditions, but than in practice it recognizes that we can't live with no legal protection so it grants the power of the state to force those rights. And so its big on legal rights but weak on moral responsibilities. This inherently leads it to empower either on the right or left side the enemies and as we are seeing today. Age of liberalism has been compromised by the very same people that represented it. It empowers its own enemies because out of selfish reasons it tries to avoid having shared moral code and no nation can survive without one.

Because liberalism came as response to the age of monarchy and church it is always skeptical and sometimes hostile to them, but it fails to recognize its own contradictions. The "Age of reason" liberals say, and everyone else looks and says the "cult of reason", why because liberalism argues we are all reasonable individuals and if only there is no religion to limit us we would be all free and reach our potential.

This might be true for individuals here and there, but certainly no evidence this is true for society at large. On the contrary. And because men are not reasonable animals but rationalizing animals, we need a constructive shred moral code, along side liberal understanding of legal rights, to have a chance of preserving what we might consider liberty.

Classical liberals, riding the wave of shared moral code they inherited from long Judeo Christian tradition has kept them in pretty good shape, but if the liberal philosophy does not have a build in way to preserve it, which it does not, it was only a matter of time when the old morals will fade and new generations will seek something else. More privileges and less responsibility. And so old classical liberals were replaced by new liberals.

.....................................

“Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects government to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother.

Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power.

The problems on the American left were already manifest by the late 1960s, as college-educated liberals began to lose contact with the working class for whom they claimed to speak... For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent."

  • Camille Paglia

.....................................

And this inevitably gave rise to really intolerant extreme lefties ideologies we see now. It was not a matter of will it happen, but when it will happen, and it is because liberalism by its very deign refused to engage in discussion of shared moral code. and with out that it compromises itself. its is Achilles heel.

And for many today, self identifying oneself as liberal has become a way to outsource moral responsibility to a liberal ideology itself. That is why many liberal intellectuals are so smug, they consider liberalism to be most moral ideology, but refuse to define share moral code. And that is why I consider liberalism as a religion, it considers itself dogmatically the best most moral ideology. To change ones opinion and see liberalism as flawed ideology, would mean one must now find something else, and that is so scary for many liberals, that they rather defend the indefensible than to say liberalism has a problem ... .and that is the characteristic of religions.

Classical liberalism insists that everyone should come up with their own morals and that there must not be one organization or person from where the morals would come from. However it gives its self liberty to do exactly that with rights.

“I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.

And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the most narrow and intolerant moralisms.”

  • Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher.

And that is what we are witnessing in the West right now. It is inevitable progressive of the progressive religion such as liberalism.

@Alysandir While there is no agreed upon universal moral code, there is something close to it. And there are reason why that is. Because it works. I'll explain in a bit.

But if you look for moral code found in various traditional religions, such as many forms of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity and even Islam, you will find many similarities , close similarities, slightly adopted to time and place.

The reason for this is that all of these traditional religions have been created in small groups. And in small groups if you don't treat well your follow man and you don't strive to be a better man, you don't survive. In small groups you need team work based on strong voluntary relationships and you need to be the best you can be.

And that is why what works was filtered form what does not work. No doubt there were all kinds of ideas about what morals should the group follow, but trough many generations of trial and error , it was a very similar set of morals that was found to be the one that ensures survival of the small communities.

In other words it was evolution of ideas. And much all evolutionary process, it was not about what one person thinks it best, but simply what works for the survival that best. And much like agriculture that developed independently in various communities with no contact to each other across the world, so did similar set of morals that simply works and allows people to survive.

When societies god larger and kings adopted some of these religions, what was added it bureaucratic component to the religion, an official codex, like Vedas, Bible, Quran and other scriptures. And kings realized that with some states craft they can leverage the religious to rule large society and keep it working. I won't go too much into history of religions, but this system works.

The clear evidance of it working is that it managed to surive for thusands of years among hostile enviroment of other rival religions and build a might civilization. Weather its Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

And they can only do this if they are more constructive than destructive.

Than we reach the age of enlightment, and once again there is a long story behind all the changes in sociaty and tehcnology that happen here, but for not lets make it simply and simply point to the rise of new class of people . The Lumières Philosophers, the Enlighteners.

The Lumières (literally in English: Enlighteners) was a cultural, philosophical, literary and intellectual movement of the second half of the 18th century, originating in France and spreading throughout Europe. It included philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Pierre Bayle and Isaac Newton. Over time it came to mean the Siècle des Lumières, in English the Age of Enlightenment.

Members of the movement saw themselves as a progressive élite, and battled against religious and political persecution, fighting against what they saw as the irrationality, arbitrariness, obscurantism and superstition of the previous centuries. They redefined the study of knowledge to fit the ethics and aesthetics of their time. Their works had great influence at the end of the 18th century, in the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution.

This intellectual and cultural renewal by the Lumières movement was, in its strictest sense, limited to Europe, and was almost exclusively a development of the ideas of Renaissance humanism. These ideas were well understood in Europe, but beyond France the idea of "enlightenment" had generally meant a light from outside, whereas in France it meant a light coming from within oneself.

In the most general terms, in science and philosophy, the Enlightenment aimed for the triumph of reason over faith and belief; in politics and economics, the triumph of the bourgeois over nobility and clergy.

Noble ideas to be sure. However like it is with all of the intellects, soon they started to see themselves as being the new priestly class, those that have access to spacial books and know what is best for everyone and seek to change the society in their image, while they are busy, not understanding the society but defining it to suite their new "enlighten" set of ideas. This will give birth to liberalism off course.

The problem with liberalism is that its trying to have it both ways. It tries to make the impossible argument that human beings have no prior moral or cultural ties to those who have come before them and that they start from clean slate. The liberated man is anti social man, to the point of radical individuality.

Liberals try to argue this point in theoretical framework with "human rights" argument. Inalienable human rights and all that stuff, that clearly is not true, its a matter of faith.

And deep down they know this is not true, so to make possible this god like individual they need to protect it. And they do os by creating and empovering the state. Under the excuse of protecting, supposidly self evident inelinable human rights.

It is not that liberals say there is no way to live a just life, but they insist its up to the individual to decided its own morals. At first this worked in America, not because of liberalism, but in spite of it. It worked because of the Judeo-Christian moral code , brought over by the settlers.
......................................................

@Alysandir

American civil religion

American civil religion is a term given to a shared set of certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals by those who live in the United States of America. These shared values and holidays are based upon, parallel to, but independent of the theological tenets of each specific denomination or religious belief. The notion of a civil religion originated in the United States due to its origins as a religiously diverse nation. From the Pilgrim founders and the other Puritan groups to the numerous other groups fleeing religious persecution, the American nation had a unique experience and developed a system that allowed for maximum freedom of religion for individuals and groups while allowing no one religious denomination to dominate. In this context, the nation developed a religious, primarily Protestant ethos and set of values based on religion but not overtly based on any one tradition.

The term was coined by sociologist Robert Bellah in 1967. The article in which the term is coined, "Civil Religion in America," sparked one of the most controversial debates in United States sociology. Soon after the paper was published, the topic became the major focus at religious sociology conferences and numerous articles and books were written on the subject. The debate reached it peak with the American Bicentennial celebration in 1976.

The American civil religion emerged as a means to permit the creation of a distinct national set of values that was not tied to a specific confession. It permitted religion to play a fundamental role in shaping the moral vision of the country but in a way that removed theological concerns from the public arena.

But over enough generations and more liberal influance what has happened? The inevetable. That Civil Religion in America, became weaker and was replaced by more and more liberal values and that invetably let to more radical lefty values.

The United States was settled in part by religious dissenters from the established Church of England, who desired a civil society founded on a different religious vision. Consequently, there has never been a state church in the United States and individual state churches have not existed in the United States since the early nineteenth century. Religious denominations compete with one another for allegiance in the public square.

These facts have created a public discourse which accepts regular displays of religious piety by political leaders but in a vocabulary which captures the common values embraced by diverse religious traditions but eschews the particular theological tenets. Unlike countries with established state churches, where the specific religious basis of political discourse is held in common and therefore taken for granted, American civil society developed a way of discussing the intersection of religious and political values in non-theological terms.

Alexis de TocquevilleThe French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville has a special place in the understanding of the role of religion in American history. In addition to defining the economic factors that separated British culture from that of the Americans, Tocqueville found the role of religion in these societies to be significantly different. He found that many of the differences between the Americans and the English stemmed from diverse spiritual practices and freedoms. In Democracy of America Tocqueville stated:

Religion in American takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion for who can search the human heart?—but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

Throughout his career, Tocqueville promoted the importance of religious freedom and education without religious influence. The importance he placed on educational innovation led to his strong defense of religious freedom:

They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.

He viewed religious independence as not a threat to society, but as an inspiration for further social freedoms, and believed the basic freedoms of education, religion, and the press to ultimately foster the spirit of freedom worldwide.

Yet Tocqueville believed religion to be essential to human success, particularly in democracies:

Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic … than in the monarchy … it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?

Tocqueville saw in America the realization of the idea that inspired him.

“I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.

And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the most narrow and intolerant moralisms.”

  • Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher.

And look at it now. Even if you want to turn to your fellow man in the same country, you cannot rely upon them, since they may have chosen differnt morals than you.

That is why liberalism can surive when socio-political situation is nice and stable and economy is ensuring propserity for everyone. But when things get hard, you need shared moral code or the country tears itself apart.

Weather its moral code adopted from Islam, Jude-Christian values, Hinduism or Budhism, it is still going to be similar to one another and proven to work.

You cannot say that for liberalism. In fact. You get the opposite. You get Communism, National Socialsm (Nazism) or any of the derivatives.

In the same century, (18th century) four ideas swept through the West and shook the world.

Liberalism, conservatism (liberalism with respect for traditions of the past), and the other two ideas were nationalism and socialism. Nationaional scoialism became off course Nazism and International Socialism became communism.

Liberlaism could not survive and it did not go back to monarcyh or church rule, it goes to something far far worse, further to the left. Communism and Nazism and there is no liberty there.

By its very nature, liberalsim is self destructice. It is very cynical about old systems of the right and very naive about new system to the left.

“In the end, the actions of such liberals have the effect---again unwittingly---of continuing to cover for the goals of the extreme Left. Yet again, the soft Left is helping to conceal the hard Left, whether it realizes it or not.” ― Paul Kengor, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century

And the problem is that one you adopt modern religions such as totalitarianism Nazism or Communism, the morality is either abolished all together like in Communism or is used in cynical fashion like in Nazism.

@Alysandir I am not asking why you aren't a conservative "like me". I am simply pointing out the fallacy of your position on abortion.
"The woman" and her body are NOT the central nor operative figure in the argument. It is the human life growing inside her and which is absolutely dependent upon her for its development - very life - and survival going forward.
Somehow in this abortion argument the life in the womb gets left out. How tragic - how convenient.

2

Karma's a bitch folks when you have blood on your hands.

Recent Visitors 13

Photos 4,285 More

Posted by Sensrhim4hizvewzTrudeau's tyranny will come to an end...ARRESTS!!!

Posted by BartlebyTDVThe story ends | Bartleby TDV

Posted by WorldSighThe 100 covid cases aboard a ship with a 100% vaccinated crew is likely because of the unvaccinated… Right, @WayneHawthorne?

Posted by WorldSighHere are some fun Covid “vaccination” statistics from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System: VAERS.

Posted by WorldSighHere are some fun Covid “vaccination” statistics from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System: VAERS.

Posted by WorldSighCongratulations to all of the strong and ambitious women of IDW/Slug!

Posted by KeVinceIt would only take minutes per day

Posted by Krunoslav Teachers at a Colorado Springs middle school forced children to tape masks to their face in what is being described as an act of “child abuse.

Posted by Sensrhim4hizvewzStill can't believe this myth is perpetuated

Posted by BartlebyTDVA remembrance of Ms. Wing's 5 W's and 1 H | Bartleby TDV

Posted by KrunoslavCDC's Zombie Preparedness Products?

Posted by Sensrhim4hizvewzHumans are learning the hard way

Posted by EdgeworkYour papers, please

Posted by 2perosWhy Not???

Posted by KrunoslavAndy Ngô @MrAndyNgo An antifa group protests in Brisbane, Australia over the weekend calling for stricter government action on Covid-19.

Posted by Sensrhim4hizvewzFrozenBubba has a message

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #truth #Police #society #money #reason #god #children #USA #culture #Canada #rights #hope #China #racist #vote #freedom #politics #death #evil #communist #TheTruth #hell #conservative #justice #evidence #kids #democrat #antifa #liberal #racism #socialist #laws #violence #community #Socialism #fear #book #nation #federal #climate #politicians #crime #religion ...

    Members 8,958Top

    Moderators