Morality Concerning Unborn Children

"Their simple, narrow-minded rejection of all attempts to better working conditions, to introduce safety devices on machines, to prohibit child labor and protect the woman, at least in the months when she was bearing the future national comrade under her heart, contributed to drive the masses into the net of Social Democracy which gratefully snatched at every case of such a disgraceful attitude." --The Fuhrer "Mein Kampf" 

A 'woman's right to choose' concerns her body and the fetus that grows in her body, or embryo. Whatever term you use to call it, it remains an unborn child, a human being in early stages of development. The dehumanization of embryos in the womb is (to me) absolutely disgusting. Women who speak of Planned Parenthood, of abortion, of terminating the life of a human being and who reduce it to 'packages of cells' 'non-sentient' even 'non-viable' echo a concept not only of social engineering (I know Hitler was for abortion as well, but in a self aware concept of social engineering) but also of moral superiority. A life that is fully-formed and viable should be allowed to have rights and to be born, but before then, it's not life, it's not a person, and can be terminated for the sake of a 'choice'. 

I've spoken about abortion, and I've thought about it a lot and in the end, my Alt-Right side does win out but remains Christianized as well. Abortion is murder every single time. But, it is also immoral to bring a sub-human into the world. Down's Syndrome babies should be aborted for numerous reasons that are obvious, but they should not be dehumanized. They are sacrificed on the altar of greatness, of human and societal progress and cohesive strength. This sacrifice is what makes abortion a good thing for those who seek greatness in a society, who want to advance technology and perhaps colonize Mars, who want to abolish barbaric foes from the East from existence and perpetuate a legacy of pale hominids to lead an ethnonationalist race into a morally, spiritually and artistically superior utopia. 

They try to make everything sound easy and detached. Abortions themselves happen with analgesics and they even drug the woman to the point where she doesn't remember it happening. Imagine if she was awake the entire time and conscious? Imagine if they described everything that happened when they were doing it and that they would show her the cut-up fetus? I don't think many women would want abortions after that. It's part of this whole 'no shame' game. Women shouldn't be shamed for being pregnant, after all, it's their choice whether they want to be mothers or not. This idea of a woman's choice is giving a moral authority to women, all of women over the life of another human being. This kind of power is totally out of their reach.  

I finish writing this post with the #WomensMarch in mind that has happened a few days ago. It is so ironic that these mostly liberal women were out marching for pro-choice, when in reality, they are committing the murder of baby girls, of potential women, often ruthlessly. I know abortions are sometimes necessary, but the disgusting 'reasoning' liberals have in order to say that women shouldn't feel guilty about killing a potential human being are often hypocritical and shows ableist favouritism. 

They go as such:

1. The embryo/fetus is not 'human' or 'conscious' yet, therefore we can end its 'not really life' because the life of a full-blown woman is more important. 

In this, the dehumanization and objectification of the fetus is normalized, unlike how feminists desire to be treated by men. So why are feminists using this sort of justification on unborn children? Because they hate children and see children as burdens, much like Buddha did. 

2.   Body autonomy! It's my body, no one can force me to have this child! 

(Except that it takes a professional and some money to cut out the unborn child from your uterus in the most unnatural way ever.)

3. It's actually selfish to put an unwanted child into the world. 

'Unwanted' pregnancies, unwanted children, unwanted before they have the chance to be born, to be seen by their ungrateful mothers. There is something very disturbed about women who do not desire to be pregnant but go ahead and have unprotected sex. 

"If you're smart enough to put on a condom, you're smart enough not to." --Richard Spencer 

Are there legitimate reasons to have an abortion? Yes. This is why abortion needs to be legal and performed in certain cases. I do not advocate for abortions at all, like I said, I think it is gross, immoral and spiritually/emotionally/psychologically damaging. All of these, however, can be argued to be poor reasons, I guess you could say my NRx/Alt-Right side has a desire for slight Eugenics despite everything.

1. The baby is very unhealthy or has a serious condition, like Down's Syndrome. 
2. The baby is killing the mother. (Eclampsia)
3. It is a rape child. (Although stats say rape children are 100% loved, and many women who have had their rape children feel better about the rape, for love and tenderness came from it)
4. The baby will be mixed-race. (For reasons of preserving social cohesion, if you live in a 97% white place, your child might be out of place, and that's unfortunate for them.)  
  
 Having a child is beautiful, highly rewarding and gives you motivation to be the best that you can be. It is part of human nature and part of being an adult. It gives you responsibility to your spouse and to others than yourself, focusing your energy outward instead of inward. Abortions are unnatural, they divide people, they force immorality on those who perform and receive them. Please reconsider your abortion, because that embryo within you is your child, and they are beautiful!
 

Feminists: Red Pill or Sterilize

As much as I wish feminists would realize that the way they see the world is not so far off to how we see the world and then break free from their anger, I would also like to see them not have any children. There is some similarities between sex-negative feminism and the Alt-Right. The only difference is patriarchy. Anyone on the right is willing to accept the patriarchy, and has made peace with it. Western Women, however strong the patriarchy, have the freedom to have a job, to choose her mate, to go on birth control, and to have a general safe environment to live in. For feminists, this isn't enough. Let's not get into sex-positive feminism because it's just degenerate and rather distasteful to speak about at this point. Sex-negative feminists are angry at a system they believe in white male-run, when we are both targeting the same Jewish system. It's not white males that own most corporations, that desire to cause degeneracy in the world, that teach women it's all right to be a sex object, that it's powerful to be sexually promiscuous, to be a prostitute, etc It's the Jews. I do think that intersectionality was funded and executed by Jews, in order to target white men, the founders of the West, in order to seed this social anarchy that we see so prominently today.

But I digress.

Feminists, and I used to be one, so I know this quite well, think that men are all raised to hate women, to think women are inferior, and grow up watching porn, their parents apathetic to this, and then are taught that all women want to be fucked by men really badly so much that they don't need consent and can all just rape women and it's all right.
Well, there's a bit right there. Pornography, which is total and utter degeneracy, ruins young growing men's minds, destroys their chances at a healthy sexuality, and poisons their view of women. We agree here. We also agree that rape is degenerate, savage and scavenger behaviour, and we need to abolish it. So we agree.

But feminists want to reform men. They want men to stop objectifying women, which we know is impossible. They don't want to be in a patriarchy because they have a deep distrust of the patriarchy simply because they believe it values men and not women, or men more and women less. This is where we differ. Women on the right are highly valued, and have high expectations, expectations that now are lower because of the amount of fell women in our midst. To me, a woman who is family-oriented, who does not perform social activism, who does not have a degree in Gender Studies, who does not victimize herself and seeks a strong, dominant and ambitious man as her mate meets the expectations (later will become a mother of children and be a housewife is preferable). Is this so difficult to be in this day and age? It seems to easy to become pregnant these days. It seems like people are constantly attempting to love women and love femininity and yet, no one cares about being a good wife, a supporting female partner to a career-oriented man, a mother, an educator, a resources manager, a cook and all the wonderful 50's things that women were cherished for being.