Land of the Reiching Sun? A Conflict Without Heroes

nazi eastern girl

A few days back, I had the displeasure of reading a clickbait “article”, on the misleadingly named Dangerous Minds blog, concerning the Far Eastern fondness for Nazi aesthetics. I made the mistake of thinking I’d get something momentarily interesting out of doing so, only to have that meagre hope mangled upon reading the first fucking sentence:

The concept of “Asian Nazis” is, of course, an extremely WTF??? proposition from the very start.

Nope – that’d be your starting statement, dickhead!

Gazing upon that atrocity of an assertion, I prepared myself for a screed from the shortbus – and, boy, did the rest of the piece align with that realignment!

Other standout sentences from this point ‘n’ shriek parade included…

….how many of these self-styled Asian Nazis have even met a Jew? Even a single Jew?

…and the not-at-all Nazi-like sentiment…

These people should be strapped to chairs and forced to watch Schindler’s List with their eyes pinned open like Alex in A Clockwork Orange.

Ironically, by setting out to shame far-Eastern Nazi-cosplayers  for their “profound ignorance” and “low intelligence”, the writer only succeeds at signalling his own, mainly by way of a geo-historical myopia and a wholesale digestion of the prevalent Saturday-morning-cartoon narrative of the Second World War.

In regard to the former, he must’ve been asleep all through history class to be so blithely unaware of the Nazi-Nippon alliance which made up part of the much-dreaded Axis back then — perhaps the chief reason that the Jews (allegedly) fear the Samurai?


In regard to the latter limitation, listening to histrionic hacks going on and on about the Nazis being cunts starts to wear thin after the six-millionth time. Yes, I get it, and yes, I agree, but your scope really could do with some widening. The hotly contested Holocaust and its entwined ethno-solipsism seems to have drowned out all discourse regarding other villainies and victims in the sanctified struggle. Folk scream about Shoah whilst paying Nanking next-to-no notice; worse, even when they do expand on Axis barbarism, they conveniently overlook that orchestrated by the victors of the piece – the Allies.

terrorists hiroshima

The nuking of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki springs to mind as my first example, what with my writing shortly after the 69th anniversary of both events. Maybe I’m just an odd fucker, but I see nothing heroic about American bombers targeting civilian populations with weapons of mass destruction. Still, try telling that to those who buy the Good War narrative, and marvel at their use of utilitarian and/or “realpolitik” justifications to smooth the story over. Again and again you’ll hear talk of Japan’s refusal to surrender and how killing so many saved so many more, like the alleged effects of explicitly named human sacrifices of old. You’ll never hear about how Japan wanted to surrender provided they got to keep their Emperor; a condition Truman rejected in order to flex his military muscle at the Soviet Union…before allowing for said condition anyway! Prior to that, Roosevelt had rained down fire on the cluster of civilians inhabiting Tokyo whilst interning Americans of Japanese descent in “relocation camps”.

burberry fdr

Again, in my crooked little mind, all that seems a little more unseemly than a few cosplayers putting on the Reich.

Speaking of firebombing, I had to laugh back in February when I saw a local news report lionising the “heroes” who sent the denizens of Dresden up in flames; clearly, deliberate incineration of civilians in war becomes a point of honour when your side wins.

Moving further to the east of the Alliance, I encounter Comrade Stalin and his regiment of Redshirts: the faction that probably played the biggest part in shattering the Axis. Prior to Stalin’s skirmish with the swastika, however, he orchestrated one of the most notable instances of genocide (and passive-aggression) in modern times – the Holodomor. Aided by Jewish Bolshevik battalions, Uncle Joe starved swathes of “counterrevolutionary” Ukrainians, eating away at both their nutrition and their nationalism.


Come the clash with the Axis, the Soviets had graduated from passive-aggressive murder to the full-blown equivalent, massacring POWs and civilians across Europe throughout the conflict. Between them, the NKVD and Red Army racked up an impressive catalogue of carnage, including massacres at Katyn, Kaulta, Grischino, and Nemmersdorf, among others.


The event which stands out most for me, though, has to be that which I dub The Red Army Rape Tour, characterised, of course, by Soviet soldiers invading both Germany and its women; even the women among those they set out to liberate – whether Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish, or Russian – fell prey to their sexual savagery. Their British and American counterparts could only hope to rival their notch count.


And the cherry on top of the whole festival of, erm, fuckery? This exemplary conduct got the initial thumbs-up from Uncle Joe himself, who said this about a less-than approving comrade : 

Can’t he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?

rapeface stalin

When I consider these Allied atrocities – no doubt a fraction of those that took place – I can only scoff at the narrative that depicts hakenkreuzers as an exceptionally nefarious force; as such, I generally see Nazi cafes and cosplay as harmless aesthetic appreciation, probably less ideologically fixated than kids in Che shirts who think Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al top blokes. I’m sure in about a century or two most Occident-residing folk will be of a similar outlook, looking at Adolf and co with a detachment that present-day Westerners hold for the likes of Napoleon, Oliver Cromwell, and Otto von Bismarck.

nazi naughty

As things stand, myopic hacks with a penchant for page hits can appeal to a ready-made cultural narrative to generate the desired fear and outrage against “Asian Nazi” chic, oblivious to their own cultural conceit and insensitivity in doing so; it’s not like their grandparents received plutonium death-from-above from the predecessors of those they criticise. As distasteful as I find actual Nazis, they comprised but one band of bastards in what was, faction-wise, a conflict without heroes.


(Besides, at least successive German and Japanese admins had the courtesy to apologise for preceding outrages, which is more than can be said for their former foes! I suppose one could christen the latter stance the vanity of the victor.)

Beyond the actions of Rabe, Winton, Schindler, Rommel, Sugihara, and their ilk, I find nothing worth lionising about the participants in “the Good War”. As such, when I read “dangerous minds” clutching skirts over a bit of fancy dress, I can’t help but imagine Shaw’s Caesar scorning them for mistaking the customs of their tribe for the laws of nature.


Posted in America, Culture, History, Moral Panic, Perspectivism, Politics, Racial Issues, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Halal & Hypocrisy XI: The Veil of Special Pleading


I seem to be writing quite a few of these H & H entries as of late; rest assured that more varied programming will resume in due course.

I read of the ECHR’s decision to uphold France’s burqa ban with a characteristic contempt last month; nothing more than a bureaucratic endorsement of the kind of piddling, pathetic social-engineering shite so beloved by Jacobins. In short, textbook Gallic governance galvanised.

As if all that didn’t suck enough cock, the slurping became all the more audible once news of it crossed the Channel to Slave Britannia. From a springboard of “debate” over a British burqa ban, pundits and punters piled on praise for the measure, saluting the state of France for standing strong against the sartorial scourge, the fabric of which threatened to unravel that of the secure secular state and its aim of “living together”. Of course, sure and spirited dissent made itself heard, only to be drowned by a deluge of determined, dimwitted demagoguery and the demos devoted to it.

When columnists, including self-declared “moderate” Muslims, frame a basic respect for civil liberties as “pusillanimous”, you know things have fallen arse over tit.

In service to their desired end, the would-be burqa-banners marshal a litany of lamentations, amongst them being concerns about security, social cohesion, and female “oppression”. As I see it, all these gripes rest on dubious premises indeed.

Take the notion of the burqa – or more commonly the niqab – as a ”security risk”, for starters; it’s rarely actually explained what the nature of such a risk entails. To their credit, niqab-naysayers Cherson and Molschky actually elaborate on the notion, citing folk hiding their faces from the paparazzi (as if plenty of non-Muslims don’t use coats and scarves to achieve the same effect), veiled women being allowed to board planes without ID checks (as if that wasn’t just a problem with airport staff procedure), and cross-dressing prison-escapees and armed robbers (as disguises go, wearing a body-length of cloth strikes me as impractical for on-foot getaways). Of course, the main point of panic, on those rare moments of elaboration, comes down to fears of suicide-bombing, disregarding the fact that fashion-wise, Muslim martyrs tend to blend in with their fellow human sacrifices; besides, given the whole “suicide” aspect, I doubt they’d flee the scene of the crime as anything other than blood ’n’ viscera.

The argument favouring the ban for the sake of social cohesion, of “living together”, strikes me as the kind of communitarian claptrap so beloved by Procrustean people-planners. It comes as no surprise to see such a state of affairs endorsed by the EU or French bureaucrats weaned on Jacobinism; to see such measures hurrahed by supposedly PC-hating, nanny-state-naysaying Brits, however…

bad comedy

Still, my dubious taste in humour allows for at least a smirk at the situation, one which gives way to a full-blown belly laugh once I take note of the ban’s effects on French social solidarity. Beyond the odd kuffar being provoked to righteous rage against the odd ingrate failing to ingratiate integrate, France’s Muslims have had themselves a riot of a time since 2010.

muz riot

In any case, a bit of restive rancour seems a small price to pay to save the shrouded sisters-in-Allah from sartorial slavery. After all, everyone knows them binliner-bedecked bitches be benighted, suffocated both literally and psychologically by their fundie fathers, frères, and fiancés; given this, what better way to strike a blow for female freedom than for a bunch of ballsack-bearing bureaucrats to prescribe and police its parameters? Never mind the niqabettes who insist they swathe up out of choice – the silly mares need to learn that some choices – and clothes — can never be adopted freelyever.


Why do the lyrics of a certain Who song spring to mind?

Whilst some might well call this newly acquired Western appetite for banning the burqa and nipping the niqab in the bud “anti-Islamic”, I say it’s better described as a manifestation of counter-Islam: a secularised strain of submission, in competition with its more brazenly theistic counterpart. With or without the state, this unwitting emulation shares several key traits with its ostensible enemy, including a fervent-yet-fragile set of adherents, censure of “inappropriate” attire and literature, and a desire to impose a jizya on non-adherents. The counter-Islamists unwittingly give themselves away when they spout shit like "They’d tell us what to wear in their countries so why shouldn’t we?", implying that Western countries should become more like ultraconservative Islamistans to fend off the veiled Muslim ghouls haunting their heads. Kinda like the "logic" of nuking a village in order to preserve it, or that of a father beating his daughter to death to save her from male predation.

Of course, this counter-call to submission shares more salient overlap with the tourniquet of thought referred to as “PC”, which strikes me as even more hilariously ironic, considering the British bell-ends backing a ban slander those opposing them with the label. Here we have a screed of skirt-clutchers so mentally scourged by the sight of expression contrary to their tastes, they need police and politicos to apply the sweet salve of censorship and make everything alright again.

In other words, the thrust of this pathetic, snivelling, burqa-ban campaign can best be summed up by the sentiment: "Your freedoms end where my feelings begin."

Apparently such a line of “reasoning”, correctly dismissed as oversensitivity when employed by authoritarian leftists, assumes a renewed reverence when appropriated for populist purposes. From my vantage point, the whole thing looks like a thinly-veiled campaign of special pleading.

For a group of people so negative toward the niqab, the burqa-bashers possess some severely shrouded vision!


Posted in Civil Liberties, Halal & Hypocrisy, News, Religion, Slave Britannia, The UK | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Halal & Hypocrisy X: ALLAHU SNACKBAR!

Subway Sharia controlled zone

I let forth a sigh upon reading the Daily Mail’s “scoop” on Subway’s “new” (as of 2007) halal menu last month; according to the article, 185 British branches saw fit to acquiesce to the acolytes of Allah by making their meals Muslim-friendly, removing pork from their platters in the process. Being partial to a bit of swine on my sub, I found myself rather chagrined by this apparent capitulation to culinary caliphatism; it brought to mind Domino’s Pizza pulling the same (short-lived) stunt several years back. As such, I found myself in agreement with IJ Review’s Kyle Becker on the pulled pork debacle:

Subway is a business doing what businesses do: looking out for its customers’ interests in neighborhoods around England.

But it’s how Subway is doing it that’s more than a bit ironic, given how tolerance is supposed to be a two-way street.

Beyond that, though, I could hardly bring myself to give a fuck regarding the sanctity of Subway’s meat, given the volume of less prestigious eateries I frequent where halal flesh pretty much covers the backbone of the beast. Significant segments of Britain’s press and public, however, didn’t share my nonchalance, seeing the Mohammedification of their menu as some sort of Shariac infringement on the sanctity of the Sceptred Isle and its treasured tradition of curry houses. Ire intensified the following week, with restaurant chain Pizza Express hitting the headlines for incorporating Islamic ingredients into its specialties; once again, the papers and the people panicked at the presence of fatwa’d fauna infringing on the integrity of an otherwise proud and pure nation of beer ‘n’ kebab connoisseurs.


As far as delayed reactions go, this one comes at least half a century late.

Still, as with the horsemeat hoo-ha from last year, this outbreak of halal-tosis emits a whiff of validity; folk want to know what they’re eating – at least some of the time — and clearer and correct labelling would be a boon for those who lack the nous and nerve to go on a Google search. A little choice goes a long way toward defusing cultural tensions, and may even win a few PR (and PC) points with the nation’s Sikhs, whose culinary concerns seem to have been overlooked in favour of the appetites of those adherent to Allah.

On top of this, certain voices spoke out against the very practice of ritual slaughter, citing animal cruelty, rather than aesthetic taste, as their point of concern. By the common understanding, livestock slaughtered in accordance with Islamic instruction does not undergo stunning before being slit from ear to ear; an understanding that led to the Danish government outlawing such slaughter, along with its kosher equivalent, back in February (to the predictable ethno-solipsist mewling of Israeli Rabbis). As with Denmark, animal welfare advocates hollered about the atrocity of the Allah-toir.


Contrary to the conventional wisdom, however, the difference between halal and secular slaughter is next to negligible on UK shores. As the Guardian’s Saeed Kamali Dehghan points out

According to Islamic principles of slaughter, which is referred to as dhabihah halal (lawful slaughter), one must use a sharp knife to kill animals for food. Butchers, required to recite a prayer and give animals water before killing them, are strictly instructed to make sure they endure as little pain and distress before death as possible. Muslims (observant and non-observant) also believe that the swift and deep incision made by the halal slaughter, resulting in a sudden loss of blood from the animal’s body, leaves the meat more hygienic.

For centuries, halal methods were considered a healthy and appropriate way of handling meat which also minimised cruelty. Of course, thanks to animal rights defenders, we have known for some time that pre-stunning is a more humane form of slaughter. That is why, at least in the UK, the overwhelming majority of animals slaughtered according to Islamic principles (88%) use pre-stunning. A large number of Muslim scholars have endorsed pre-stunning and rendering animals unconscious before slaughtering them. This is where the objection to halal slaughter on animal rights grounds begins to look spurious.

It is true that many Muslim countries still refuse to practice pre-stunning, but this sadly also happens in a large number of non-Muslim countries across the world. And in France, conservative groups defend the right to continue producing foie gras in the traditional manner, regardless of the cruel way ducks and geese are fed and killed. But when it comes to halal meat they talk of animal cruelty.

Interestingly, animal welfarists (and Mail scribes) may well be badgering the wrong butchers if a German comparison of slaughter methods carries legitimacy beyond the lab:

The approach of these studies can be summarised as follows:

Experiments for measuring the heart frequency and brain activity during slaughter conditions were carried out on 23 sheep and 15 calves. After implanting permanent electrodes into the Os frontale the cerebral cortex impulses were measured for 17 sheep and 10 calves during ritual slaughter and for 6 sheep and 5 calves during captive bolt application with subsequent bloodletting. Some sheep were additionally subjected to thermal pain stimuli after the ritual cut.

The investigations had the following results:

a) For slaughter by ritual cut:

1. After the bloodletting cut the EEG initially is the same as the EEG before the cut. There is a high probability that the loss of reaction took place within 4 – 6 seconds for sheep and within 10 seconds for calves.

2. The zero line in the EEG was recorded no later than after 13 seconds for 17 sheep and no later than 23 seconds for 7 calves.

3. Thermal pain stimuli did not cause an increase in activity.

4. After the cut the heart frequency rose for calves within 40 seconds to 240 heart actions per minute and for sheep within 40 seconds to 280 heart actions per minute.

b) For slaughter after captive bolt application:

1. After captive bolt stunning all animals displayed most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.

2. The zero line in the EEG was reached for 4 calves after 28 seconds.

3. For two sheep the cerebral cortex activity only stopped in one half of the brain, whilst it continued in the other in the –region (up to 3.5 Hz) until the bloodletting cut.

4. The bloodletting cut resulted for all animals in a brain activity (e and d waves).

5. Thermal pain stimuli caused an increase in activity in one sheep.

6. The heart frequency rose directly after stunning to values above 300 actions per minute.

In any case, all this puffing and preening over whether secularists or salaamists make for the more “ethical” butchers doesn’t obscure the reality that, one way or another, some animals, somewhere, get slaughtered for my sustenance. Of course, I’m all for avoidance of “unnecessary” slaughterhouse suffering prior to proceedings, but whichever way you cut it, it still bleeds out. Savouring the “sacrifice” strikes me as the best (main) course of action for a committed carnivore like myself – all meat is halal to me.

As long as my co-infidels dial down the whine, and Muslims and dhimmis keep their hands off my swine, we’ll all get along fine.


Posted in Culture, News, Religion, The UK | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Modernity and Its Discontents: Nietzsche’s Critique, by Douglas Kellner

Like a Böse!

Ported over to the Inferno for improved legibility, this serves as a rather comprehensive overview of Fritz’s thoughts on the trends and currents that compose what many call “modernity”. Rewarding reading for those with time to invest, despite the often repetitive nature of Kellner’s prose — enjoy!

Continue reading

Posted in Amoralism, Anarchism, Atheism, Culture, Fuck Democracy, Gender Issues, Perspectivism, Philosophy, Politics, Racial Issues, Religion, Society, Texts of Interest | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

S.E. Parker: Ragging Redbeard

Fresh from being flushed down The Memory Hole, here is Sidney E. parker’s incisive intro to, and critique of, Ragnar Redbeard’s notorious social Darwinist screed, Might is Right.


Continue reading

Posted in Egoism, Ethics, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, Racial Issues, Religion, Texts of Interest | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Halal & Hypocrisy IX: No-Show Mo’ (From Deviance to Dhimmitude)


It all started with Maajid Nawaz, a man who on paper ticks the boxes marked ‘safe’, ‘moderate’, and ‘reasonable’; being both a Lib Dem MP and executive director of the Muslim “counter-extremism think tank” Quillam, the reformed “radical”—who recently persuaded EDL founder Tommy Robinson to renounce his own extremism—hardly reads like the sort of person who’d make a point of courting controversy.

However, back in January, he ended up doing just that when he let rip this torpedo of a tweet about the satirical web comic Jesus and Mo:

FireShot Screen Capture #026 - 'Twitter _ MaajidNawaz_ This Jesus & Mo @JandMo ___' - twitter_com_MaajidNawaz_status_422342223460855809

The obviously incendiary nature of this tweet elicited a fiery response from several parties. As well as the usual mob of miffed ‘n’ militant Mohammedians, some calling for Nawaz to “get cancer and die a painful deatg” (sic), “burn in hell”, “deactivate from life”and other nice things, pushback also came from politically-established folk such as Respect MP and Scottish Shariaite convert George Galloway, who vowed to rid the political arena of the “rancid” reformist’.

Still, all this reads like a standard story so far: man shares pic of The Prophet, eliciting screeches and scourges from the pious and/or PC alike. Nothing particularly out-of-the ordinary, right?

Well, not until Channel 4 News covered the events, anyway. Their January 29th broadcast gave a rundown of events, as well as the verbal excretions of his co-Muslim Lib Demmers, determined to see him deselected (Check out Irfan Ahmed’s slimy definition of free speech, typical of many a special (pleading) interest group, and ponder the fact that he and others of his ilk whore for votes in the diseased brothel of democratic politics).

However, the words of the aggrieved abdullahs paled in comparison to Channel 4 News’ own acquiescence to such sentiments; in an unexpected show of PC propriety, they aired the image of offence (to others) with the most offensive of alterations (to me)…


…and to really rub it in, this censorship-hating viewer got treated to this cocksucking commentary:

We’ve decided not to show [Jesus & Mo] in full because representations of The Prophet are offensive to many Muslims, though others may disagree with our decision…

“Disagree”? I’ll fucking say!

Once upon a time, one could synonymise the name “Channel 4” with adjectives like ‘risque’, ‘cutting-edge’, ‘avant-garde’, and ‘controversial’. This was the channel that screened UK TV’s first (pre-watershed) lesbian kiss with Brookside; raised brows, and temperatures, with the notorious Red Light Zone weekends in the mid-nineties; rustled many a moralist by broadcasting a parody of paedomania; and, more recently, screened live autopsies, as well as the loss of a man’s virginity to a sex surrogate.

So, how is it that this otherwise shameless, bold, and irreverent station could reduce itself to such abject submission—to such sheer islam—in the face of a religious taboo?

And why, once called out on it, would they go on to defend their PC pusillanimity with this drivel?

As we are sure you can appreciate, this is a very sensitive subject for many viewers. Channel 4 News editorial staff gave great consideration to the issues involved and believe that they reached a fair and balanced judgement, weighing up the potential for offence to some viewers by showing the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed and the necessity of showing the cartoon in full.

The senior editorial team decided that the showing of the entire illustration, whilst likely to cause offence, was not integral to the story, and therefore took the decision to pixelate. Whilst we acknowledge your views, we believe that on balance this was the correct decision and as a rule, where we consider the likelihood of significant offence to our audience, we will attempt to mitigate against that. As to not pixelating the image of Jesus, it was not felt that the same level of offence was likely to be provoked as the image is commonly depicted in cartoon form.

We appreciate you taking the time to contact us and be assured your comments have been logged for the information of our News team.

Whenever some Occidentalist or other drones on about the prospect of “Eurabia”–the  West’s demographic deluge beneath a sea of Islamic immigration—I often question the faith they claim to have in their own civilisation; as I see it, the problem lies not so much with the “invading hordes” they decry, but with the hosts who wilfully supplicate to any dysfunctions and neuroses they may import with them. Whether it’s pandering pizza chains who take non-halal meats off their menus, joke-shop judges who excuse belligerent behaviour on account of belief, or simpering student unions who penalise their press for printing irreverent illustrations, each Caliphate-courting capitulation contributes to a de facto dhimmiocracy, leaving all participants the worse for wear over time.

As such, even though organized atheism aggravates me as much as organized religion these days, I commend the gist of the National Secular Society’s open letter to Channel 4 News:

By redacting the picture of ‘Mo’, you have contributed to a climate of censorship brought on by the unreasonable and reactionary views of some religious extremists. Rather than defending free expression, one of the most precious pillars of our liberal democratic society, you have chosen instead to listen to extremists and patronise British Muslims by assuming they will take offence at an irreverent and satirical cartoon. By taking the decision you did, not only did you betray the fundamental journalistic principle of free speech, but you have become complicit in a trend that seeks to insidiously stereotype all Muslim people as reacting in one uniform way (generally presented as overly sensitive and potentially violent).

Given that your editorial decision seems to be have been weighted by a concern with offence, we might also note that you ended up with a report that was, in fact, very offensive to many; offensive to those who take seriously and cherish our basic freedom to speak and question, and offensive to many Muslims, whose voices you do not hear because you insist on placating the reactionary voices of people claiming to represent what it is to be an ‘authentic Muslim’.

In the subsequent interview with Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, presenter Jon Snow made the point that there are a number of places in the world where blasphemy is punished by death. This reality provides an apposite backdrop to the whole debate and, by extension, Channel 4’s decision to censor. In a world where the notion of offence to those with religious views is being used to control and punish people of all religions and none, the UK has an urgent responsibility to uphold freedom of expression in the face of religious extremism. Its news outlets share in this responsibility.

When a courteous yet convinced Muslim like Nawaz outdoes a supposedly transgressive TV channel in both balls and broadmindedness, perhaps it’s time for the latter to question its “cutting-edge” credentials.


Posted in Civil Liberties, Halal & Hypocrisy, Moral Panic, News, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The White-Knight Wombocracy: A State of Special Pleading


Of all the court cases the press have pored over recently, none have fascinated me more than that of John Welden, who recently started a 14-year prison sentence for drugging his girlfriend into a miscarriage. If memory serves me well, I first heard about the case last spring, when Welden first entered the dock on a charge of no less than murder.

According to the Mail (emphasis mine):

[Remee Jo Lee] was six or seven weeks pregnant when she miscarried.

Welden pleaded guilty in September to tampering with a consumer product and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. He had faced a possible life sentence if convicted of his original charge, killing an unborn child.

Welden admitted in a plea agreement that he forged the signature of his father, who is esteemed Tampa-area fertility expert Dr. Stephen Weldon.

Welden’s father had no role in the heinous crime, but was in the courtroom in the weeks preceding sentencing as prosecutors sought to prove that the single dose of Cytotec had caused Lee’s miscarriage.

Prosecutors succeeded after expert witnesses for the state testified that any amount of the drug also known as misoprostol could cause miscarriage.

Now, with the announcement of a verdict, these gears in my head set themselves turning once more. While the thoughts generated don’t apply to all particulars in this trial, I think them worth at least a few paragraphs contemplation.

The first thing that hit me in the face about this case was the initial charge levelled against him: where the flying fuck did the whole murder thing spring from? After all, the alleged ‘victim’ amounted to little more than a cell clump, baking in the brine of Lee’s uterine oven prior to its expunction: a procedure she could legally opted for up to 21 weeks later. What gives?

Daily Caller reporter Caroline May gives more of an insight into things; according to her (emphasis again mine), “Welden accepted a plea deal last year to avoid a possible life sentence if convicted of murder under the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, instead pleading to product tampering and mail fraud”. Under this frankly puzzling piece of legislation, an involuntarily terminated embryo assumes a posthumous personhood for the purposes of prosecution, a personhood otherwise denied it by the inclusion of Roe vs Wade on the same law tablets.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"


Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]

The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

- Wikipedia

This effective compromise between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” positions results in a Frankenstein gestalt of legalistic white-knighting, under which the legally protected “personhood” of a certain demographic lies at the mercy of a woman’s whim. In other words, that fledgling womb growth has rights/no rights, dammit…unless m’lady says otherwise, of course! It reminds of those soldiers in the “pro-life” brigade who make an exception in their otherwise strident position for rape, placing female feelings above “the sanctity of life” and the decrees they profess to observe.


Not that those of a “pro-choice” persuasion uphold higher standards of consistency. Whilst cheerfully championing the “right to choose” of the womb-bearer, they sing a different song in regard to that of the sperm-donor, who is required to donate more than his genetic material should Little Miss Incubator choose to carry his tadpole to term. In fact, bringing up Mr Inseminator’s lack of choice over his financial contributions tends to elicit responses along the lines of “Shoulda kept it in his pants!” and “Boo-fucking-hoo!”, flavours of response that would be boo-hooed at by the “choicers” were they levelled against reluctant mums-to-be. Under the ostensible “best interests of the child” (Where have I heard that before?), the female’s legally-protected “right to choose” childbirth imposes a legally-enforced 18-year duty on the male to be a walking wallet, whether or not he consents to the arrangement; all this with special-pleading approval and scant contest from those who claim to champion choice.

body wallet choice

To her credit—and Welden’s disgrace—Lee had professed her lack of complicity in this state of affairs:

Federal prosecutors said Welden never wanted Lee to have his baby – even though she was determined to keep the pregnancy and raise the child on her own.

After she lost the fetus in the hospital, she went to police and agreed to have her conversations with Welden recorded.

‘I was hoping that this was some sort of horrible mistake,’ Lee said. ‘He told me what the medication was, and it was Cytotec.’

Authorities released a transcript of a conversation Lee had with Welden.

Welden told Lee that Tara Fillinger, his other girlfriend, had found out about their relationship and was ‘furious’.

Lee says: ‘If you wanted to go be with Tara, that’s fine. Go be with Tara.

‘I woulda had my kid and I woulda been fine with that… woulda told my parents it was someone else’s. I wouldn’t have bothered you for money. I wouldn’t have bothered you at all.’

‘I didn’t want to be that guy,’ Welden replies.

Nevertheless, under a legal system which rigs “reproductive rights” as a white-knighting, rent-seeking, zero-sum game, I can conceive contexts where a slip of Cytotec to the womb wouldn’t be such a contemptible act.

(Thanks to Meat Curtain of Doom for the womb/wallet pic.)


Posted in Ethics, Gender Issues, News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments