I have heard it said that if you are not a Liberal at 20 there is something wrong with your heart, but if you are still one at 40 there is something wrong with your head. Well, I will turn 40 this year, and I do not believe there is anything wrong with either my heart or with my head, for I certainly did not start out from where I am now. In saying that, I mean no respect to those of you who were never taken in by disinformation and pretty wrapping, I am sure that your hearts were in perfect working order and that your heads were just more mature than mine was at the age of twenty.
As you may have realised, I have been on a long ideological journey over the last few years and suspect that I have become part of what the thought police most fear, one of the many one time committed liberals who has woken up to the folly of where we are being taken.
That said, although you will all be fully aware of my views on third world immigration, which, I guess, place me in a “conservative” camp, I certainly still hold true to many so called “Liberal” values, and do not necessarily see that as a conflict.
On some issues, such as public gun ownership and the death penalty, both of which, as I have discussed here before, whilst I still oppose both, I am prepared to see the other side of the argument, even though they still make me deeply uncomfortable.
However, on other values, for which I will inevitably be accused of “liberalism” I stand relatively firm and can not imagine that I will ever revise my view, although my perspective may have shifted in some respects.
I will not make the mistake of mentioning the “G.W.” words again. However the preservation of our environment, should, I believe be a priority above almost anything else. What on Earth is the point of fighting for our children's future if we do not leave then a world in which to enjoy that future?. As a Christian I accept that the bible tells us that we hold dominion over nature, but that does not give us the right to exploit it to extinction. We have been entrusted with the guardianship of nature, and that requires us to be conservationists as well as farmers.
God will not replace what we have destroyed, we only have to look to Africa and see how rapidly the desert is advancing on those countries where exploitative farming has taken place, to see the truth of that fact.
Mankind has drained seas, we have devastated forests and levelled mountain ranges, we have recklessly exterminated innumerable species including many which may have held the cure to any number of illnesses. We have polluted our planet to the point where bits of our civilisation can be found on the remotest places on Earth, that can not be allowed to continue without diminishing the human experience.
I was lucky enough to travel widely during both my childhood, and in the early years of my marriage, I have seen great natural beauty, the memory of some of which still stuns me now. I want that experience for my grandchildren and for their grandchildren, if that makes me an environmental liberal, then so be it.
I am also still a “liberal” when it comes to the subject of gay rights. I personally enjoy a heterosexual marriage, and have never felt and attraction to a member of my own sex, however, I have no objection to anyone who does, and can not understand why anyone would have.
I continue to be shocked, and indeed offended, by much of the ugly anti-gay rhetoric which I see on so many Nationalist sites, and was appalled by the scenes which came out of Moscow this weekend. I fail to see what homophobia has to do with Nationalism. The hatred of homosexuals is something which some nationalist share with the worst elements of Islam and the black bigots of the African churches, it is nothing more than a self indulgent irrelevance, which actively damages our cause because it gives our enemies grounds to accuse us of hating everyone who is not like us.
As you can see from that last sentence, even on this subject, I may no longer be the bleeding heart liberal I was at twenty. From an entirely cynical perspective, being anti-gay makes no logical sense, we should not forget that, like women, homosexuals will be amongst the first victims of an Islamic take over of the West, or indeed one overrun by third world cultures. Many may not realise it yet, but a time will come when gay people will come to appreciate that the left will betray them for the sake of multiculturalism, at that point many will become our natural supporters, and we do not have the luxury to reject votes merely on account of what people do between the sheets.
I may also make few friends within the Nationalist community by stating that I am a strong supporter of third world aid.
To be clear, I do not believe that the wealthier Western Nations have a duty to offer physical sanctuary to unsustainable numbers of people from the third world, indeed, as I have argued here before, that is positively damaging, not only to the host nation, but also to the third world, which will just get worse and create more and more refugees.
How exactly are we helping the third world by offering any of their countrymen, who are able bodied enough to get out, a home in Basildon?
However, I certainly believe that we have a duty to assist them financially. I mean this not only from a humanitarian point of view, although that is surely a major factor, as I fail to understand how anyone can see our fellow human beings suffer, whatever their race, and not want to help, however, it is also in our best interests to help improve the lot of the third world, not least because the more prosperous their homeland, the less motivation the citizens will have to leave it.
As I have declared before, I do not hate any other race, I believe that all races and peoples to have value and an entitlement to their own homeland, and I only part company with the “Liberals” in that I believe that applies equally to those of white, European, ancestry. I look forward to a situation were all races have their own homeland where they can thrive and be happy and where nobody's culture is overwhelmed and diminished by others, as seems to be the fate facing Europe at this moment.
I also part company with political correctness and liberalism in respect of how aid needs to be distributed and unlike them I believe we should stop pretending that things are as we would like them to be and deal deal with the facts on the ground as they are. You do not defend a child's rights or their welfare by handing them a wad of cash, and hoping they spend it wisely, and the same applies to countries which have shown themselves totally incapable of looking after their own people.
Charity can only have an effect if it is handled rationally, and therefore any organisation which refuses to give up its delusions, or clings to a despot friendly political correctness, like the United nations or many aid charities is self evidently not up to the job.
You may wonder where this diatribe is leading and why I have felt it necessary to take you on this tour of some of my various attitudes and opinions. I can assure you that I am not seeking to prove that I have an opinion on everything, I am a woman, so you already knew that. Rather, I thought a (relatively) brief examination of my ideological journey and the conflicts between opposing positions, with which I still struggle, was as good a way as any of arriving at a subject I have been wrestling with for a number of years, and one, in respect of which I now find myself in a position almost diametrically opposed to the views I held twenty years ago.
It is not a subject I have ever mentioned before, and probably not one I will mention again, as it is not what my blog is about. However, it is a subject I have thought a lot about recently, and one, about which, with your indulgence I would like to express a view.
That subject is a woman's right to choose.
I should start by declaring that I have never had a termination, I have one child, and am still young enough to have more, although the Nave of Albion and I are not actively seeking to increase our family, were that to happen, it would be a delight and a blessing despite all that it would entail.
However, I am also grateful that I was able to enjoy my teens and most of my twenties in a way that I could not have done had I become a mother at an earlier stage, as would most likely have been the case had I been born twenty years, or so, earlier.
I would never wish to return to the days of illegal, back street. abortions and all the mutilation, death and misery which that entailed.
However, although it is a view which the twenty year old me would never have imagined myself taking, I no longer believe that any woman should be entitled to an undisputed right to choose an abortion.
Let us set aside those circumstances where a woman's life is at risk due to a complication with her pregnancy, in which circumstances I imagine most would agree that the life of the mother should take precedence over that of a life which is not yet viable. However, such situation is less about “choice” and more about medical necessity, and, in any event, amount for a tiny proportion of the number of abortions taking place in Western Nations each year.
When this subject is raised, people will usually mention the plight of rape victims, and I can fully understand that a woman might not wish to give birth to the child of a man who raped her. However, the woman's is not the only innocent life involved, should the child involved actually pay the ultimate penalty for the sins of its father? Did that child deserve to be denied life because their father was a rapist? This is an area which requires a lot of thought, because easy answers are just not good enough.
Again, like medical emergencies, rape related abortions amount to only a tiny percentage if those which take place. By many, many. thousand, the vast majority of terminations which are carried out in the West are the result of accidental, unwanted or inconvenient pregnancies, and I no longer accept that the right to choose outweighs the right to be born in such circumstances.
For many years I would certainly not have taken that view, I would have argued that a woman had the right to decide (or choose) what happens to her own body, however, now I have to ask how many times she has the right to make that choice.
I recently watched a video in which a young, school aged, American girl spoke passionately against abortion. Although she was very impressive, as a cynical European I am sure she was merely parroting the words taught to her by an adult. A child of her age should not be required to take a view on such a subject, and it was somehow exploitative to ask her to do so. However, whatever my scruples and whether the words were hers or her tutors, one statement she made struck me as an indisputable truth, and put much of the “choice” argument into perspective.
As that young girl said, “Most of such women have already made a choice, they had the choice not to have unprotected sex” there is no argument against that truth, in such circumstances abortion is the second choice given to them, when the first choice goes wrong.
Feminist may argue that women are cajoled, seduced or forced into having sex, but they say that about all sex, and unless the woman is raped, it is, like most feminist fantasies, basically not true.
We all feel terrible sympathy for someone who makes a mistake, but we all make mistakes, and we all suffer the consequences, and why should someone be denied life because someone else has made a mistake, especially when the “mistake” was a deliberate choice?
People will argue that we need to control the population, but that is to view termination as a form of culling, which surely must never be applied to human life. Furthermore, such a claim makes no sense when applied to European nations where the birthrate is plummeting, a fact used by our politicians as an excuse for importing millions of people into Europe, yet at the same time as our leaders are frantically promoting immigration to allegedly "compensate" for our shrinking and ageing populations, we are allowing hundreds of thousands of viable European children to die each year, doesn't that start to sound a little suspicious?.
When aimed at the West, the arguments in favour of birth control are a malevolent lie. There is absolutely no reason to reduce the birth rate amongst indigenous Europeans, and every reason to boost the birthrate. If there is an argument for birth control, it is in those parts of the world where population growth is out of control, not here where the indigenous population is shrinking by the day.
I believe that, as a society, we should actively encourage all pregnant women to give birth to their child, no matter the circumstances or how inconvenient or unwanted the child may be and they should be given every assistance and incentive to do so, including financial. There should be no need for illegal abortions because there should be no stigma and limited disadvantage attached to child birth, and much benefit and celebration. Why should even the most unwanted child die, when there are thousands desperate to adopt?
I have not reached this view for religious reasons, or because I am strongly, pro-life, quite the reverse, I believe in certain circumstances voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide can be justified, however, only when the person directly involved is able to make a choice about their own life.
When a termination take place, there are two lives involved, but only one is allowed a choice, and that I can no longer support.
_________________________________
