You know that we’re under powerful cultural hypnosis when Australians protest American issues. Hitherto, Australians marched in solidarity with the discredited Black Lives Matter. The Supreme Court of the United States’ decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade verdict was a reason for woke millennials to take to our city streets last Saturday.
The overturning of the decades-old abortion ruling was SCOTUS correcting a procedural wrong committed in 1973. It was never up to the supreme court to enact a law; that is the responsibility of elected representatives. By overturning the decision, they placed the issue back in the hands of the American people and their state legislators. And, evidently, this now includes the Australian people as well.
The only time an Australian vote matters in an American election is when the Democrats count their tally. Otherwise, our voice doesn’t figure much over there. But nobody told the millennials and Z-generation woke-bots that took to the city streets around Australia to protest against a decision by the supreme court of a foreign country that has no impact on their wombs whatsoever.
The abortion debate is ugly and tricky. It is highly emotive. But how many abortions do women need? The idea that abortion serves as an alternative to contraception has created a moral quandary at a time when morals are themselves highly unpopular. The knee-jerk response from the left seems to suggest that traditional western morality must be violently opposed, otherwise, it may lead to a lack of tolerance for trends that were, in times gone by, intolerable. Take the sexualising of children and infants, for example.
In liberal American states, so-called gay pride has extended to indoctrinating children into scenes of outright perversion reminiscent of the artwork of Hieronymus Bosch. In this country, it is illegal to publish a picture of a minor near an image of a naked adult. But in liberal US states, transexual freaks are twerking half-naked in front of kids as if it was just a teddy bear’s picnic. Grown men who think they’re women are parading around “family-friendly gay-pride events” with children inserting stripper dollars into their G-strings. In any other culture, this would lead to mass hangings. But the corporate-government-global-media complex is busily normalising such scandalous degeneracy as hasn’t been known since Tiberius was emperor of Rome.
This is what the left does best—manufacture consent by sheer audacity. They say it, they do it, they create it, and they try to make it appear as if all is now perfectly normal. But it’s evil. So is arguing for abortion.
Abortion is an issue we nationalists at New Australian Bulletin are not about to get het up about. This is especially the case where people of colour are concerned. As such, we divide with the conservatives yet again, for we fully support any woman of colour’s right to have an abortion. In their case, we very much describe it as a “right”.
Many in the US ignored the fact that the majority of abortion clinics are in coloured neighbourhoods. From everything that the enlightened left teaches us about being a coloured person, what with systemic racism and their overall racial inferiority, it is better to spare another coloured person from entering this cruel world. They will only grow up to have leftists telling them what to do.
The spastic nerve of the left sets to twitching over any move they perceive as reverting to traditional Christian morality. Woke women protest, “My body, my choice,” but that argument is only plausible so long as one rejects the idea of a “viability” period for a fetus. The negation of an embryo as signifying life is important to the acceptance of abortion and its place in the degenerate culture eating away at western society.
The idea of “choice” they tout in their propaganda veils their intolerance for anyone else’s choices. There is only one choice as far as the left is concerned, and then they resort to terror. Antifascist Action is the personification of the ‘our way or else’ in regards to this anti-western revolution that uses terror and the blind eye of law enforcement to force its will. But when we say anti-western we mean anti-white.
Jane’s Revenge is a terror group styled around women’s reproductive rights. But this should theoretically pit them against the terrorists of the trans movement, which is in itself a movement against decency, sanity, and social cohesion. It is astonishing how all these disparate interest groups can intersect at unlikely viewpoints like abortion. Trans freaks demand inclusion on the issue based on the sick fantasy that men can become pregnant. Yet, the trans movement is a parasite on women’s rights.
But that’s hardly the only incongruity we witness in this orchestrated tumult of endless outrage: if women regard themselves as unified on this issue then they must accept the idea that a woman alone is nothing. If they allow for that then they must concede the underlying impossibility of their pro-abortion argument.
If women’s unity is a concession they are a community, then they belong to a society. If that’s so, the question of “my body, my choice,” is subordinate to the collective. Only hyper-individualism dares split the two. In other words, does the child belong to the woman or society?
When the nuclear family is absent, must society as a whole join together to foster the child? If it does, then there are two lives, and it’s no longer that woman’s choice. This reality comes from her biological sex, and it means that the sexes are given roles. The indulgent age of the self has cast these roles into confusion. This obligation to society has been ruffled by interest groups connected to a force with a wider social agenda.
That’s an interesting train of thought, but it’s not necessarily accurate. Society has always been selfish. Unwanted children have long been thrown into pits; just read the works of Charles Dickens. The tragic crime of orphanages and the lives they’ve ruined bear testament to society’s indifference. The hypocrisy of the Christian attitude bears the blame for the abandonment of faith. The Christian ethic that declares every life is sacred extends only to the principle. It seldom follows through to nurture life.
Pious society abhorred single mothers in times gone by. But it was a mortal sin to have an abortion. By that standard, one can imagine the church relishing the wresting of the innocent child from the sinful mother. Instead, those unwanted children were abandoned to the care of sadistic nuns and fathers who physically and sexually abused them. They were treated as if they were criminals, or worse, indentured slaves.
We shall forego speculation as to why those involved with particular churches wound up so mean. Enough horror stories about orphanages run by religious orders exist to validate the contention that something is systemically wrong with them. Therefore, both with Christians and the left, we see virtue signalling.
Will all those who argue pro-life take care of a child that’s been spared from being aborted? Who will raise these children? Despite virtues firing at a quantum rate like proton particles in the God Machine, society hasn’t managed to reach the precipice of genuine altruism. The kind of state that would make wards of such children and raise them with care and affection does not exist. Some say it takes a village to raise a child, but we live in a “global village” that doesn’t accord with village rules or values. It is strictly a commercial system designed for an oligarchical few.
The children of this global village are the ones protesting about their choices and their bodies. And these woke millennials and Z-generation zealots were very much raised in a global village in which George Soros sits like an old man on his diabolical throne.
The explanations of Roe v. Wade (1973) and the subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) are intricate. These arguments revolve around the contentious Fourteenth Amendment to the US constitution. Specifically, the first section of which deals with citizenship and, broadly speaking, civil rights. The first section contains several clauses, and it was under the Due Process Clause that on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court held by a 7-2 decision that a pregnant woman’s right to an abortion was protected by the constitution as a “right to privacy.”
However, it also acknowledged that this right wasn’t absolute and safeguards had to be observed. A timetable was recommended as a guide for the states based on the third trimester of a woman’s pregnancy. In 1992, the SCOTUS redefined several provisions of Roe v. Wade, particularly around the area of consent and the trimester determining the viability of the fetus. The nub of the matter that remained under contestation depended on the definition of “undue burden,” or the obstacles placed before a woman seeking an abortion. Put another way, the government’s power to prevent an abortion versus the personal liberty of a pregnant woman is put into perspective.
Don’t bother seeking a simplistic definition of these rulings because they’re too complex. In essence, the matter boils down to a contest between ideological perspectives.
Initially, the pro-abortion feminist movement’s rhetoric was shaped by environmentalism and reasoning involving population control. A controlled population would also be a welfare relief. The Christian right countered that their policies were racist as abortions were more common among ethnic minorities. They had support in this from civil rights groups.
Sinisterly, woke corporations are offering free travel to “pro-choice states” for female employees wishing to abort. If they need a scrape, it’s there for them; the SCOTUS took nothing away. The issue has been used once again by the dissident forces within the US deep-state to foment discord. Once again, Antifa has been busy lighting fires and enacting violence on the streets of liberal American cities, the ones in which abortion is not under threat. Jane’s Revenge launched firebombing, arson, and graffiti attacks on crisis pregnancy centres in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson.
Moreover, from a sociological point of view, the issue has exposed the underlying chauvinism of the left at full tilt.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a black man. He was appointed to the supreme court by then-President George H.W. Bush. Thomas is described as an “originalist,” meaning that he holds to a strict interpretation of the US constitution. The 74-year-old was a conservative appointee and sat on the panel reviewing Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Clarence Thomas was one of the justices who voted 5-4 to overturn Roe v. Wade. Because he was black and a Catholic, Thomas became the target of racist [sic] vitriol and left-wing threats. He was called a “nigger” by leftists on Twitter and an “Uncle Tom.”
Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are also Catholic and likewise voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Protesters gathered at the homes of Supreme Court justices, which is technically a felony. Regardless, the laws were never upheld by the police in their respective states.
The issue is fraught with philosophical points from both sides. However, the ultimate question is whether a baby is the property of the mother or is a unique life that must be protected by society. It is difficult to find arguments that any child conceived, no matter at what stage of pregnancy, is not an individual life. Perhaps this is where it becomes easier to choose a side of the argument.
Notwithstanding a woman’s right to abort on medical grounds or under extreme circumstances such as rape, abortion is nasty. At a time when the birth rates of whites are so low, no nationalist can conceive of permitting the wanton extermination of future whites.
Then again, we are unable to raise unwanted offspring. Our position on non-whites and child destruction create a bugbear if we choose to argue “Christian morality” since we fully endorse any coloured woman accessing an abortion. If they wish to flourish, let them do it in their land. Our attitude is informed by our instinct to preserve our race.
Abortion is legal in all states in Australia, although access to it varies according to the states and territories. Similarly, the availability of abortions differs in those states and territories according to gestational terms, with the average being 16–24 weeks, except in the ACT, where no time restriction applies.
In terms of data regarding the number of abortions performed in Australia each year, it’s impossible to find. Only South Australia and Western Australia record these statistics. However, they only have general records available, and these are incomplete.
Instances of abortion occur mainly among teenage girls and young adult women. SA and WA provide the only statistics from which a wider figure is generated. Allowing for the rising population due to Australia’s globalist immigration policy, that figure climbs annually. We have no idea what proportion are non-whites. According to the statistics provided by the only two states that do so every four years, 73,800 abortions were performed in Australia in 2018. That’s 2,800 more children than were destroyed the previous year.
We aren’t going to list the American statistics because we are in Australia. This takes us back to our point.
The left manipulates language to manufacture consent. Because of this, we’ve had multiculturalism foisted upon us; feminism; homosexual marriage; and the trans movement. The US exported them around the western world. Australia showed no independence on these issues; we simply fell into line like a loyal lieutenant.
Given that there are no planned changes to the abortion laws in the offing, why would these young people make a passionate display of support for the United States over a subject that is too complicated for such young folks to properly process? Why did they uncritically march for Black Lives Matter? Why did they try to conflate the experience of Aborigines in Australia with Leroy and Jamon from the ghettoes of South Central LA?
The social revolution is global and not spontaneous. The very idea that conservatives might remedy the procedural wrong that occurred via the initial ruling on Roe v. Wade is abominable to the left. The left has proven very effective with social tantrums, to the point that corporations adopt their causes, often to their financial ruin: Take Netflix, for example.
This synthesis of the media, industrial, tech, and government complex is steering the west into the abyss, but that seems to be the goal.
The destruction of unborn children figures large in the plans of the environmental blackshirts. They champion death. The pro-abortion protesters didn’t limit their sloganeering to messages about a woman’s “choice”, they trivialised killing children. They glorified it. They shifted it out of the ballpark of a woman’s “right to privacy” and into the arena of the death cult.
Bear in mind that these are the same neo-communists who supported the governments in their tyrannical over-reach in their response to COVID-19. People are now dropping dead from their beloved vaccines, which big pharma foresaw since they knew their vaccines hadn’t been properly tested.
Those marches last Saturday were a manifestation of ideologically-induced mass hysteria. The absence of reason should tell us all we need to know about the generations involved. They come from a certain class and background, and they are attuned to a global ‘right-think’. There is no reasoning with them.
When all else is exhausted, the only options remaining will be to either allow our tolerance for them to change us (such as conservatives have allowed), or to stand up and physically shut them down for good and all!