Love and Gosnell (UPDATED)

Biblically described, there are three types of love: agape, phileo, and eros; aka godly love, friendship, and sexual desire, respectively. Somewhere along the way, a new definition of love was added to the language, one which has a single outward feature: giving a person what s/he wants. With this type of "love," one must give a person anything s/he wants or approve of the gift.  Anything less becomes the opposite of love: hatred. And when a group wants a thing for the sake of some characteristic of that group, opposition to the giving becomes hatred of that group.

Thus, when a white person won't give a black person what he wants or disagrees with him, it's racism on the white person's part. When a man won't give a woman what she wants or disagrees with her, it's sexism on his part. When a heterosexual won't give a homosexual what she wants or disagrees with her, it's homophobia on the heterosexual's part.

And when a black person, woman, homosexual, etc. disapproves of this gift, that person is ousted from the group by the group’s recipients. After all, a few naysayers have the potential to cut off the giving, so any other potential naysayers must be discouraged. Ostracism has potential to keep the others silent.

The bestowal of this new type of love is required from those who are perceived to be in a position of worldly power, but reciprocity is not required of the perceived powerless recipients of that "love." Additionally, and of the most importance, the new type of love has pride as its foundation. The "powerful" giver is proud to have given the gift and the "powerless" receiver is proud merely on the basis of group membership to have received that gift. No gratitude is required on the part of the latter. That group is only getting its just due.

It matters not if the giving will hurt the giver or the recipient. It doesn't matter if the giving of said gift will hurt any aspect of society. It doesn't even matter if the gift will wipe out the lineage of the recipient.  All that matters is that the recipient gets what s/he wants. (It's interesting to note that the German word for the noun 'poison' is das Gift; the verb 'to poison' is vergiften. The last also means 'to pollute.')

So it is that actor Ken Wahl--a white man-- is called a racist by a black man. Wahl's alleged crime: hoping that the abortionist Kermit Gosnell gets the book thrown at him for being a small but egregious part of the self-genocide of a people.

Black guy called me racist due to my stance on #Gosnell.I said,"Don't u care that the babies he killed were black!? U should,G! I do!" #tcot

— Ken Wahl (@KenWahl1) May 2, 2013

But the discerning know what Wahl’s real “crime” is: not wanting to give a designated black person what that person wants, and, thus, refusing to show his “love” for the black race.  Gosnell wants freedom, but Wahl wants him to be imprisoned. Therefore, Wahl is "racist."

You know, it’s almost as if most of the world has become populated by billions of narcissists.

For certain, Kermit Gosnell does not consider the babies he murdered to be human beings, much less fellow black Americans. Here's a little secret that not too many non-blacks know:  there is a certain segment of the black population--an elite--that looks down on the majority of blacks and believes that the world would be better off without them. This elite has existed for a long time and what they think about the vast majority of blacks would make a Klansman blush. (One white person who does know: Anne Rice. She outlined the culture in her excellent, non-vampire novel, The Feast of All Saints.) From his courtroom and jailhouse demeanor, I suspect that Gosnell is one of these self-styled elites.

It's said that many of his clientele were young black drug addicts and prostitutes. Someone like Gosnell would believe that he was doing the black race a favor by "culling the herd," that is, getting rid of the inferior members of his race. That he didn't even allow his victims the dignity of proper sanitary conditions and that he kept trophies of his youngest victims are just symptoms of his singular psychopathology...and actually, the former makes sense given what I suspect about Gosnell. Puncturing uteri, over-drugging and passing along diseases through dirty instruments would--and did--cause many of the women to become sterile.

But he had accomplices! No, I'm not talking about the creatures who worked in his office; I'm referring to the Pennsylvania authorities who knew since 1993 what kind of charnel house Gosnell was running and did nothing about it. The only reason that we know about Gosnell is that he happened to over-drug one of his patients, the patient died, her husband alerted the authorities and, as a result, the DEA--a federal agency--swooped down on Gosnell's clinic. And, here's something pertinent: neither that patient nor her husband are black. One wonders how many black people complained to the state authorities about this man over the past twenty years.

Now, most of you know I'm not wont to play the race card, and, in a way, I'm not doing it now.  You see, I think that the Pennsylvania authorities thought they were "loving" Gosnell and his mostly black patients. How? By giving them what they wanted--in spite of the complaints from some black people about Gosnell, black women kept going to him to have him murder their babies.

This is where the new type of love has brought us: all taking, all appetite—and easy disposal of an inconvenience like children because children require adults to do more than just take, be more than just appetite. (And, remember, just because most women who have abortions do so early enough within the legal limit doesn't make their children any less murdered. I know.) 

Margaret Sanger's ideology has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams: the “human weeds” have been conned into weeding themselves.  Sanger would be smiling right now were it not for the uncomfortable environment of her permanent home. 

[Re-edited]

(Thanks to Twitchy)

UPDATE (May 15, 2013): In the comments, uptownsteve--the infamous troll of black conservative sites and pages--unwittingly demonstrates the truth of the premise of this essay. Thanks, Steve!

Comments

[Ruth H]

You write on this and show the truth so much better than I ever could. I have posted a link to it on the group that calls itself the Hispanic and Black American Tea Party.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheEverybodyTeaParty/
I miss seeing your posts on a regular basis.

[baldilocks]

Hi Ruth!

I don't feel inclined to write so much anymore. But every now and then something gets me going.

I've been thinking and praying about things like this for a bit. And God has been dealing with me about my own pride issues.

However, I sit outside--like I've been doing a long time--talk to the Lord, and mull things over. With this subject, I finally set myself at my computer and put down those musings on the site. It's a topic I've been trying to understand and verbalize for too long.

Thank you for your years of reading.

J.

[uptownsteve]

Gosnell is in jail where he belongs. What are you still ranting about Precious?

[uptownsteve]

"Thus, when a white person won't give a black person what he wants or disagrees with him, it's racism on the white person's part. When a man won't give a woman what she wants or disagrees with her, it's sexism on his part. When a heterosexual won't give a homosexual what she wants or disagrees with her, it's homophobia on the heterosexual's part."

Still peddling your self-hating Aunt Jemima bullcrap I see. I'm sure the rightwing white boys appreciate you makiing their case for them.

[baldilocks]

Check the date of the post.

Glad to see some things don't change; you're as stupid as ever. But here's a change: you're whinier.

[baldilocks]

Why are you mad at me? I didn't give birth to you.

[uptownsteve]

I'm sure you haven't given birth at all. Who would do you? Uggh.

[baldilocks]

Ha ha! Little do you know.

Besides, you would, even though you have never had a chance in Hell and not just with me. That's why you're so angry at black women--besides that mommy abuse thing. We both know those are your problems and they are the root of your anger. Why else would you do what you do?

I've seen your comments all over the place, Steve Fair, and your pathological anger is pathetic to behold. Seek help. I'll even pray for you.

[uptownsteve]

I'm hardly angry at black women. I'm married to one. Don't try the Jedi mind tricks with me sweetie. You're a blue black short haired African chick who wishes she was born a busty blonde Swede. And why are you stalking me on the web? I just happened to google "Gosnell black conservatives" and came across your drivel. Projection thy name is Baldilocks. LMAO!!!!!

[uptownsteve]

Oh and let's not forget the white boy/black women romance novels. That's why a lot of your types posture as "conservatives". It's the only way you can get attention from the object of your desires. White men.

[baldilocks]

Stalking you? Hahahahaha!!! I like reading other black conservative sites and you're infamous at many of them. Facebook pages also.

You're at my site, not the other way around. So who is stalking whom?

Your poor wife. You must hate her. That's why you married her: to get revenge on at least one black woman.

[baldilocks]

What romance novels?

[baldilocks]

Oh you think my novel is a romance novel! Actually it's about people like you who can't seem to stay out of other folks' business.

[baldilocks]

And, since you claim to be married, why do you care what other women want or don't want? You need to stay in your lane and worry about the woman you're alleged married to. But we both know you're so obsessed with other black women that you can barely see straight.

Poor Mrs. Fair...assuming she really exists.

[uptownsteve]

Since you know so much about me (lol!) you can go on my FP page and see several pictures of me and my lovely ebony wife. Meanwhile, you'll spend the rest of your pathetic life chasing racist white men. Who don't date black women. You're a clown. LATER.

[baldilocks]

What's an FP page?

Again, if you love your alleged wife so much, why are you so interested in my life? We both know why...well at least I do. You, however, will continue to delude yourself, whine about women who don't want you and pretend that it's because we don't want any black men. No, we just don't want you.

Oh and if I'm such a clown, why are you here? Tell you what: you go with God and stay gone. For real--not like you're pretending to now. Any further comments from you will be creatively edited.

Have a nice life and keep your nose out of mine.

[Pascal]

Og told me you had written on this subject. He thinks that you'd most likely like to see how I responded to one "conservative's" shock that our Soviet Style Media keeps finding excuses not to speak of this mass murderer.

http://pascalfervor.blogspot.com/2013/05/left-protects-wildlife-babies-nah.html

Since Gosnel and those like him are following the originally open and now clandestine "Progressive" plan to rid the planet of "sub-races" and useless eaters, they don't want to have the those who continue such practices ostracized in the manner they do to someone such as you or me.

I don't get those on "my side" who are shocked/surprised except they are either somewhat in favor of the idea ("well, the world IS overpopulated you know.") or are in total denial. And it does not seem to matter how much evidence piles up that their Sustainability aim is on-going and murderous.

I certainly wish you luck fighting for your people. I have a similar problem with mine.

[baldilocks]

Same to you. God bless.

[Pascal]

I've something to add to your last paragraph on Margaret Sanger's regrettable success. Many do not know that she and H.G. Wells were paramours [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/passionate_friends.html], suitably united in their vision of manipulating humanity.

There is a thorough discussion here [http://tinyurl.com/Eugenics-of-Personal-Choice] of Wells' on again off again reluctance to pursue forced eugenics, that eventually developed into scheming at ways at getting unwitting compliance from the (his words) "people of the abyss."

Here is one excerpt of many that are quite illuminating in demonstrating how he'd moved from making overt recommendation to becoming coyly suggestive:

In the 1938 revised edition of
The Science of Life, the suggestion of biological improvement is made, as “If these [definably inferior intelligences] can be detected and set aside so that, without humiliation or other cruelty, they can be debarred from breeding, then perhaps the mass of mankind will begin to follow its leaders up the scale of understanding”.

If you'd allow me, it may be hard to believe that your "wildly successful" description above is almost understatement. When we see the widespread acceptance of anti-natalism; where we see public policy has been exuberant in delivering the targeted their "right" to snuff their own posterity, going so far as to stifle any contrary arguments that might cause the targeted populations from using that "right;" success is not a word I like at all. It's frustrating to explain.

How about this: Duplicitousness is a word I want to create since duplicity alone seems inadequate. Defining rights like this one, and then making the target feel deprived for not employing it, strikes me as too much like the smiling letch and his "here little girl, I've nice sweets for you." Ugh.