The case for voting for Clinton

Yes, Trump is lots of fun. Having Mexico build a wall makes me giggle too. Shitting on Saudi princes on Twitter is priceless. But, but, Trump may not be all that cracked up when he gets the presidency. He's doing lots of stupid stuff too. Bombing ISIS? Come on. Pandering to conservakin voters has its backside too.

Take this:

Fuck yeah. That's exactly that they should be doing. That's perhaps the best, the most important single policy that any country on earth can be pursuing. Go promote abortion in the third world. Go limit their fertility. Don't liberals like to talk about root causes? Well folks, the root causes of third world immigration into Europe and America is overpopulation in the third world. Wanna fix that? Then send Obama's minions and go tell them about grrl rights and abortion. Great stuff. Please, fund Planned Parenthood. Fund it lavishly. Give it tons of money. And staff. Lots of staff. Diverse stuff. Whatever. Just send them away to preach their mission.

Having planned parenthood go to poor countries is even more important than stopping the rapefugee crisis in Europe. I'll sign a treaty allowing 2 million refugees a year in exchange for Planned Parenthood having full authority in any refugee-sending country. In 20 years you get their TFR to 0.9. Then after they have a demographic crisis, you can send the rapefugees from Europe back home. Win-win.

So hey, vote Clinton. Shit is fubar already, Trump probably ain't gonna help much. Crushing anti-abortion activism though could actually save the day.

[…] By spandrell […]

It's like Saudi Arabia sending off their craziest Wahhabis to go fight jihad or be Madrassa Imams, just so long as they do it over there.

It's a good idea, but the Beast is wise to it. For at least the last 25 years, promoting population control and abortion in the third world has been a little... icky. Don't get me wrong: justice, liberty, and human flourishing demand that white women in rich countries have a lot of abortions. But, to try to impose that on the third world, well, that's cultural imperialism at the least, and possibly even racist eugenic pseudoscience.

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

heh, Spandrell, wouldn't it be easier to quit subsidizing their high TFR by ending incentives like open-borders and foreign-aid?

In the framework of the progressive state, it's way easier to just increase funding to an existing agency which is ostensibly working for a progressive cause. Cutting foreign aid would mean dismantling a huge business which employs thousands of good progressives and their idle daughters. Can't do that. What you can do is tell them that the new thing in foreign aid fashion is helping wise latinas to fight for their feminist rights by refusing to breed, instead of just giving them food.

So, we should send them foreign aid in manifold forms, and then also subsidize their abortion industries? Or, we could keep our dignity, refrain from proactively joining in with the murder of millions, and simply stop subsidizing their otherwise impossibly high fertility rates.

*yawn* The only thing your dignity is worth for is making pointless signaling in some stranger's blog. Good job man.

Practically speaking when has this ever worked - using progressive means to undermine progressive goals? Progs have an uncanny ability to completely forget their principles when they contradict the progressive project (mussleman immivasion and feminism, frex). This is bordering dangerously on "liberals are the real racists" strategy.

Spandrell, perhaps you're right. Don't fight the tide, ride the wave. Maybe they should promote Jennerism while they're at it: “Why breed when you can grow a set of bodacious tatas instead—we can make it happen!”

Stalin?

Admittedly though, massive capital misallocation in the form of aids research, mosquito nets, food, clean water and efforts to combat sickle cell anemia cause huge market distortions in the form of low-IQ-population-bubbles.

What does that Breitbart article have to do with Trump. I though Trump had a longe pro abortion history, Oh googling it just then he has recently gone back that for evangelical votes seems like a tactical flip flop for Cuckstian votes. A bit of a dodgy move I doubt his honesty but that also I don't expect him to pursue anti abortion that vigorously. He still has my vote... if I was an American. Progressives have never pursued birth control etc in the third world very vigorously they want the hoards of low IQ brown people to destroy civilization. And you are never going to turn Africans into low fertility progressives anyway the only way to stop growing Africans is to stop sending them food.

The ever growing budget leads to bankruptcy. It seems inevitable because so many of the decision makers come from inside the system. But if you cut off their checkbook and stop obeying them, you will soon find they are just a bunch of inept fools.

Breitbart have been extremely pro-Trump since the beginning. And this article is just evangelical style anti-abortion hysteria. Nobody knows what Trump would do about abortion if he wins the election, but this kind of campaigning makes me feel uneasy.

The way to keep from having refugees destroy your country is not to destroy their cultures with evil Cathedral birth control propaganda. You've already lost that war, since your culture has been infected for a lot longer (and their aggression and stupidity provides them with a decent measure of immunity.) The strong are put on this planet to rule the weak, and the smart are here to rule the stupid. Not to destroy them. If you want to keep your country from being destroyed by third world refugees, close the borders. It's not hard. If you want to address the root cause, it is that their home countries are very poorly run (and sustained through Cathedral aid). So export good governance, and Africa and the Middle East will once again be nice places to live, producing way more than it takes to sustain their populations. You will benefit, they will benefit, everyone will be happy.

There's no human way to have Egypt feed its people for much longer. Let alone Africa. How the hell are we going to export something we don't have? Exporting good governance is pointless and expensive; we learned that 200 years ago. Using the third world to send their idle daughters for virtue signaling is a more profitable proposition for the ruling class.

Egypt would be able to feed the rest of Africa if it were properly managed. It is, sadly, not properly managed, thus unproductive and incapable of feeding its own population. >How the hell are we going to export something we don’t have? Well, there's your answer. You should focus on getting you some.

Either you know something I don't know about farming, or the 3 million hectares around the Nile can't feed infinite amounts of people. It's good land, but there's a lot of Egyptians. And they gotta grow some cotton for export too.

This sort of thinking was heavily promoted in the 60s and 70s by the likes of Paul Ehrlich, and then discredited by the Green Revolution. But nobody who was anybody paid any attention. The reality is that even if the Egyptians engaged in zero productive activity aside from growing food, if they used modern technology efficiently, their land would be way more than necessary: http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/9582/how-many-people-can-you-feed-per-square-kilometer-of-farmland There also are many, many other productive ways of using Egyptian natural resources. And the population is quite sufficiently smart for manufacturing operations (given a foreign managerial cadre.)