Counter-Currents
White Nationalists Need Planned Parenthood, Not the Pope
Patrick Le Brun
2,611 words
This past week has provided a number of interesting events that highlight what was once the most contested social issue in the United States.
In New York City, which despite its diversity has a stronger sense of collective consciousness than any city I have lived in, a young woman just tossed a newborn baby from an apartment window in the Bronx. She had hidden the pregnancy and claimed that the baby was stillborn, but the coroner has confirmed that the baby died of blunt force trauma upon landing. This horror happened just weeks after Rashida Chowdhury of Queens threw her 1 month old out of a window.
Chat with any guy at the cash register of a bodega or selling food out of a cart and this story will be at the top of his mind. In this very liberal city, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn’t think this action calls for justice. She must at the very least, spend a long time in jail. But many of the same people who condemn her find it difficult to address the fact that had she not been in her apartment but in a clinic, and had a doctor injected poison into her child a moment before natural birth, that this would be a legal medical procedure. This paradox makes people uncomfortable and for good reason.
I believe that the majority of Americans, most of whom rarely consider big moral and social questions, truly struggle with this issue and revisit their position regularly. However, one would never realize this by listening to debates in the media or pronouncements by politicians. The issue is presented in Manichean terms. We must choose between the shrill Man-Hating Jewess (probably a survivor of childhood sexual abuse) and a patriarchal celibate in clerical clothing (probably an accomplice of sexual abusers). After a 5 minute shouting match on cable television, the media expects us to label ourselves with titles that could have come from the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four, “Pro-Choice” or “Pro-Life.” For most cable news addicts, their choice comes down to who they would rather sit next to at a bar.
The majority of Americans do not fall in this Manichaean construct. Since 1975, the Gallup organization has been asking Americans about their views on this question, and for only one month in 1991 has the view “Legal only under certain circumstances” fallen below 50%. There is of course the question of individual morality involved. When is such an act morally acceptable? This is a question many of us must deal with in our private lives. However, when it comes to public policy, the debate must be shaped by factors other than those considered in private decisions. This should certainly not be limited to whether we value “individual liberty at all costs” or believe that an individual soul (with all the obligations that entails) enters a human body when the sperm penetrates the egg. Neither of these foundational philosophical/theological positions takes into account the societal impact of the public policy.
Because the white race is locked in a genocidal tailspin, put in place by an oligarchy that wishes to definitively destroy trade unionism and the welfare state and by the Organized Jewish Community which wishes to realize a multi-generational vendetta against our people, we must especially consider the impact on racial demographics.
Pope Francis, The Left Hand of Dysgenics
New York and Philadelphia both came to a standstill as Pope Francis came to visit. While the media was focused on the Pontiff as a new Princess Diana, and of course took the opportunity to exploit whatever crossover there might be between the Pope’s off-the-cuff political pronouncements and the policies of the Democratic Party.
There are however, two things about this visit that the vast majority of journalists are incapable of understanding but that White Nationalists must understand. The first is that the former Bergoglio is the incarnation of the lie of “Latino” identity. This is a social construct developed by Europeans who were pursuing “family strategies” in the pursuit of power rather than values-based strategies. (See Kevin MacDonald’s explanation of these distinct European approaches here.) The former Jorge Bergoglio is 100% Italian. The screaming throngs of migrant workers from south of the border do not share one percent of common heritage with him. They do however have two things in common, the language and the religion of the Conquistadores, though the latter would be unrecognizable to those who brought it to the New World. For the vast majority of their history, that has been enough to keep peace and order between the exploiters at the top of their societies and the exploited at the bottom.
The Pope and the Anchor Baby in a photo op that was planned one year ago.
The “Latino” Oligarchy, as is often the case with Mercantile elites, is short-sighted and profit oriented. Their alliance with the Church has put in place a system that pays no heed to genetic inheritance. When the Catholic Church is in power in Latin America, whether the stronger ecclesiastical current of time is on the Right or Left, the arc of history will always lead to a country (even one as white as Argentina) that looks like Brazil or the Dominican Republic, with all of the politico-economic problems that entails.
The second important point ignored by the media is the institutional shift within the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Of Catholics under 33 years old 54% are “Hispanic.” Of the 172 Active Bishops, 28 are “Hispanic.”[1] They cannot claim any US Cardinals, but you can expect this to change during this Pontificate. When future historians look back on this visit, they will likely identify it as the moment when the “White Ethnic” majority and Irish plurality began to lose their institutional hold and the “Latinos” began their rise. The days when the Catholic Hierarchy provided the pillars of support to the Catholic political leaders of the kind explored in “Fascism: American Style” are already long gone. The days of building anti-White coalitions and contributing to the Racial Replacement politics of the US are already here.
Of course this is not simply the result of Latino leaders taking over the US church hierarchy, it is in fact the systematic result of the policies of the Church and the Vatican’s institutional imperative.
How does the religio-racio-demographic Latinization work? Let’s compare the US to Brazil to find out. Racial demographics in Brazil were not published starting in 1970 out of fear of unrest. But from 1950 to present, the White share of the country has fallen from 62% to the mid-1940s, with quite a few “Whites” who in American terms are “passing.” In Brazil, poorer women in the more African populated northeastern areas and many poor, mixed race women did not have access to birth control until the 1980s, and birth control was not made affordable to them until 2007.[2]
This was due entirely to the influence of the Catholic hierarchy on politics. The now Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI denounced the policy to make birth control affordable during his visit at that time. So the churches right wing makes sure the poor non-White Catholics have more children than they can care for, and the church’s Left wing keeps them in the pews through its social gospel discourse and demands that wealthy responsible White People submit to invasion by their parishioners. Just to reemphasize, the Left and Right wings of the Church are not opposing social forces, they are merely the right hand and left hand of the same dysgenic system.
What would America look like with a Catholic social policy? According to the CDC, there have been 13 million abortions conducted for African American women since Roe v. Wade. There are more black fetuses aborted than are born, and every year about 5% of reproductive age black women have abortions.[3] There are no reliable statistics on how many White women who procure abortions are pregnant with Black babies. Currently about 2% of births issue from Black-White mixed parentage.[4] If we were to conservatively assume that 2% of abortions by White mothers in 1990 were of Black babies that would raise the Black abortions by over 20,000 and increase their total by 4%.
A back of the envelope estimate shows 6 million black children would be of reproductive age had they not been aborted, not including mixed race births. They would almost certainly be raised in poverty. Whether analyzing impoverished communities in developed or undeveloped countries there is a direct trade-off between family size and exiting poverty. So these 6 million adults, with no abortion access and living in poverty, therefore reproducing at the rate of poor Blacks, would have contributed at least 18 million new children to the Creedal Nation by now. That is the equivalent of 40 more Detroits!
When Catholic teachings on sex and reproduction take the lead in policy making, these are the results. It is not a question of Left or Right but the systematic results of the Vatican’s institutional imperative. In 2010, America had 42 million African-Americans, of whom 12 million were in poverty. The 200 million White Americans, who were and are hurtling toward minority status were unable to produce the political will that was necessary to reverse that trend with the demographic composition it had at the time. Avoiding minority status is, after all, the primary political project of White Nationalism.
Ask yourself, White Nationalist, how far this project would have proceeded if there were 66 million African-Americans instead of 42 million. What would life be like if every ghetto was more than quadruple the size it is now?
The Brazilification of America would already be complete.
Republicans Threaten Government Shut Down to Defund Planned Parenthood
In an attempt to energize the Christian Conservative base that was patronized by George W. Bush and routed by Barack Obama, Congressional Republicans are threatening another government shutdown in order to prevent any government funds from flowing to Planned Parenthood.
This is coming on the heels of horrific videos that were recently released of mutilated corpses of unborn babies and another featuring a Planned Parenthood executive trying to profit from their body parts. The latter was created by Catholic Anti-Abortion activist David Daleiden, who posed as a biotechnology company executive seeking fetal tissue. The release of these videos coincided with the lead up to Pope Francis’ visit for the World Meeting of Families. The filming took place on July 14th, and the first and second videos were released in a way to lengthen media attention and increase public awareness.
The doctor performing abortions displays a chilling disregard for the gravity of the act. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, who hosted the World Meeting of Families, stated “No one should be shocked by this video . . . this is who Planned Parenthood is and what it does. It’s been part of the organization’s gene code from the start. The logic of its disdain for new life is just working itself out. And it won’t stop until the money and the media adulation are cut off.”[5] The disdain for the White Race shown by Church leadership is just as obvious, as the Pope tells Romans that they “suffer from the sin of pride” if they “refuse to share” their city with African invaders, not to mention advocating policies that would have contributed 40 new Detroits to the US.
It ought to be pointed out that while the Catholic Church is at the forefront of this movement, there is no shortage of Protestant collaborators. Every clear thinking White Nationalist must find themselves in agreement with the New York Times editors in calling it a tragedy that the last abortion clinic in Mississippi (the Blackest state in the union), in its capital Jackson (which is 80% Black) has been facing attempts to shut it down for years. In yet another variation of pathological altruism, well-meaning White Christians and their White governor are hectoring this last clinic in Mississippi. It is ironic that the White citizens of this state which struggled to maintain a White majority for decades after the Civil War is sowing the seeds of its own displacement because of our own racial tendency to universalize values, take a God’s eye view, and with charitable hearts help whose who have a well-established record of harming us.
Conclusion
As the Eugenicist author Marian Van Court, a Counter-Currents contributor, has pointed out on Red Ice Radio, Pro-Lifers like to get on their high horse and pretend they have the moral high ground. A deeper examination proves them wrong. Numerous studies have already established the causal link between their policies with overpopulation, poverty, and environmental degradation. This article only scratches the surface on why White Nationalists should oppose “pro-life” policies.
Just as cigarette packs in some countries include an obligatory picture of organs ravaged by cancer, every time presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz calls for the defunding of Planned Parenthood or Jeb Bush says that “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues” there ought to be an obligatory video of a welfare office filled with crying nonwhite babies. Even the dullest Cuckservative would be rattled out of his self-congratulatory moral signaling by that image and sound.
I can assure you, that I would not want to “share a beer” with any of the journalists covering this issue for the NY Times who were cited in this article (let alone those from Slate and Gawker or any of the NGOs covering these issues), and I certainly wouldn’t want to eat while chatting with the abortionist from the undercover video, but that “want to share a beer” feeling is only an influence on the good goys who are not doing politics but to whom politics are done. Perhaps a pundit can get by on this superficial level, but a real political actor involved in practical politics must make alliances with scumbags and people he or she despises to move an agenda forward. There is no exception. You cannot just make political progress with people who say things that make you feel good. If you think that, no matter how old you are, you are not yet politically mature.
Among White Nationalists this issue may be a litmus test, to see who has truly prioritized our goal of re-establishing A Nice White Country. I would never proclaim to another person that they ought to follow one religion or another (though I highly recommend adopting some regular religious practice). I count many Catholics among my comrades in France as well as both Catholics and socially conservative Protestants in the United States. I respect their prerogative to adopt their own ethical standards. These activists are true Revolutionary Nationalists, though, and for them, the divide between their personal code of honor and the public policies they advocate is crystal clear.
I’ll turn again to Marian Van Court, who summed this up better than I can:
Eugenicists must vigorously oppose all so-called “pro-life” candidates, and the utterly outrageous “personhood” amendments. “Pro-life” is a superficially attractive term that conceals a sinister interior, because what it really means is unequal access to contraception and abortion, which invariably causes genetic deterioration. Just as the idea of Communism sounded appealing in the beginning, the reality was untold misery. It is the same with pro-life.
Notes
2. Brazil’s fertility rate has since dropped below replacement levels. Brazil is, by American sociological standards at least 51% Black. Imagine the poverty, crime, and corruption levels of Newark, NJ (52% Black or mixed race) on the national scale, and ask yourself, does the Catholic Church still occupy the moral high ground? Who could possibly say that allowing them to create such a society is the side of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness? http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/brazil-subsidizes-birth-control-pills/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html
3. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0101.pdf
4. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/todays-multiracial-babies-reflect-americas-changing-demographics/ Apply this to the 7% mixed race birth cohort.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
53 comments
Brilliant! An article like this has been needed for a long time.
Europe is not ‘the faith’. ‘The faith’ failed Europe.
The Faith didn’t fail Europe.
Europe abandoned the faith and look where it got us.
You are exactly right. This blaming of Christianity is so patently false that it exposes those who assert it as reacting with mere knee-jerk bias. How about this proposition (which was implied in your comment): When the nation was most pervasively Christian in all its institutions it was the most self-consciously and politically racialist. The more this paradigm weakened so did its racial assertiveness. Until we arrive at the present, wherein everyone knows this is a massively post-Christian culture. Eg.: Oregon – it’s chic to mass-murder Christians. The media rolls its collective eyes, bids us move on. Yes, the church is corrupt and marxist. That is, the Faith of our fathers and mothers is dormant. And not for the first time.
The solution to the problem of the uncontrolled growth of poor non-white populations is not easy access to abortion, but easy access to sterilization combined with financial encouragement. Offer women who let themselves be sterilized child support if they have no more than two children. In this way zero population growth for such populations will be achieved. Abortion should only be allowed in case of rape, incest, serious handicap of the foetus or danger to the mother’s life.
I agree. There is actually sound evidence to suggest that abortion is dysgenic- only those minorities intelligent enough to hold down a job will pay for an abortion. It also requires a kind of future orientation indicative of higher IQ.
This is a materialistic approach to the subject, one that denies any higher virtue or reality.
White race idolatry is not going to serve us well in the effort to preserve the race. We should work more to make whites identify and value their race and interests while having the understanding that God and His interests are higher than the race. Develop a strong race again and then conservatively be generous to others within reason.
The Darwinian worldview has presided over the decline of our race. It lost its heart and will. Yes I am a Christian, as should all who treasure a true civilization. The race became historically strong when it embraced Jesus in truth. It was conquered when pagan and is on its way to extinction as it falls back to pagan ways.
Whites in strength need not fear other races if they embrace the same strength. A black race that denies abortion will have gone from short sighted savagery to a wiser more acceptable neighbor. Encouraging abortion for any race in unworthy of us. Besides , Sanger’s program has been around nearly a century and our problems with blacks continues unabated. Abortion serves no one but the devil.
God is just a fantasy that cripples you in dealing with reality.
Really immature answer – that SURELY will not divide Nationalists.
Let me get this straight. Brick stupid professions of rank superstition do not divide nationalists. But frankly disagreeing with such views does divide nationalists. Conclusion: only Christians should be allowed to speak in nationalist circles, lest we be divided. Sorry, but what should unite nationalists is nationalism. Not a fake impression of Christian hegemony brought about by henpecking non-Christians into playing along with and patronizing Christians. Religious differences are real and should not be papered over in a healthy movement.
I agree that everybody has the right to express their opinions in regards to religion, but it should be done more politely. One does not need to use phrases like “Brick stupid professions of rank superstition” and “God is just a fantasy that cripples you” in order to make their point. This could have been said much more nicely and still have retained the same message. So it’s not what was said that makes this divisive, but rather how it was said.
A dissapointing reply to be certain, one that reeks of positivism. Codreanu respected God and did more for the Right than you will ever likely do and you troll me on God rather than make a useful response. It is your site, but you will never have power to shape nations sporting Asatru, atheism, or whatever your flavor of vanity is.
Martel and other true defenders of Europe had a belief that Europe was a Christian land whose people were Christian, without that belief you would not have a Christian or pagan Europe, it would be Islamic.
When YOU want to get serious about reality, drop the nonsense and start supporting what has actually worked for the white race in Europe. There is a reason Christianity has stood for nearly two millenia and why nothing else has in Europe.
You want strong white families, then my God ” fantasy” has a good track record. Obviously you are not truly for the white race as you would mire it in confusion and weakness.
Christianity stood so long because it murdered its rivals and crushed dissent.
Christianity lost its magic power of promoting white fertility when the birth control pill was invented. Which really means that it never had any magic power of promoting fertility to begin with. What promoted fertility was sexual desire, which the church tried to control and sprinkle with holy water. But when man severed the connection between sex and reproduction, God did nothing to put them back together again.
Actually, it was Christianity that destroyed the traditional European family. The maladies you see today were the natural consequences of Christian ways.
See Alain de Benoist, ‘Marriage and the Family’.
Maybe, but i shudder by the thought of the consequences of the actions of the people who disregarded any god, and as a logical consequence put the state there instead as their absolute authority. One mad man at the top screaming kill!, and you’re off.
“Maybe, but i shudder by the thought of the consequences of the actions of the people who disregarded any god, and as a logical consequence put the state there instead as their absolute authority. One mad man at the top screaming kill!, and you’re off.”
There is neither God nor gods. Con men and witchdoctors have, however, used religion to do the very thing that supposedly makes you shudder. It has always been this way.
Mr. Lund,
I will not fault you for believing in God. I believe in God and in Good and Evil.
Lifting a billion people out of poverty over the last 25 years was Good. It was made possible by policymakers who paid no heed to the Church’s teaching on sex and reproduction. That change benefited both the 1 billion (mostly Asian) formerly impoverished people and by extension, Our People. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2010/chapter2.pdf
Finishing the century with 4 billion Africans is Evil. It will be a nightmare scenario for every race of humanity, especially our own. It will happen if the likes of George W. Bush along with Christian Fundamentalist and Catholic leaders dictate policy in Africa. http://data.unicef.org/gen2030/
I’m sure someone can come up with a reason to invert that assessment and say “1 billion people lifted out of poverty is an Evil thing” and “3 billion more Africans living in grinding poverty is Good.”
“Sanctity of Human Life” will not stand as one of those reasons, once we look at the big picture.
Mr. Le Brun, I appreciate your full-throated racialist cast-of-mind and appreciated your article so far as I could. As an evangelical, I think you can reciprocally appreciate that a Biblical ethic does not permit me to compromise on the issue of taking an innocent human life. Your good research and writing certainly galvanize me to an even higher state of alarm on the matter of the utterly undesirable increase in non-white birth-rates especially vis-a-vis those of whites. At least emotionally as it has been wildly clear to me intellectually for a very long time now. But my first reaction to this and to virtually every other issue concerning white endurance and fluorishing is separation, and in the end only separation.
Mr. Savannah,
I am glad that we can respectfully disagree and both remain committed to stopping the replacement of Our People. I imagine that you know (but others reading this thread may not) that I have written very positive articles about the contributions of Christians to our cause, most recently about the White Nationalist Pop Band Les Brigandes and about Traditionalist Catholic direct action against degenerate art in France. [ https://counter-currents.com/2015/09/les-brigandes-french-nationalist-pop/ ; https://counter-currents.com/2014/12/how-traditional-catholics-are-taking-back-the-visual-culture-of-france-part-2-a-tactical-guide/ ]
You can be certain that in the areas where I interface with the mainstream of society, which is more often with center-leftist, I do my best to put the brakes on policies that are detrimental to Our People and upset the control of the parasites, while promoting things that are beneficial to our eventual return to control over our destiny.
My intention is not to have White Christians start treating abortion as another form of contraception in their personal lives. In fact, we certainly agree that the casual approach to abortion as contraception in the former Communist Bloc ought to change (and it should cause those who think Russia is undergoing a Traditionalist Renaissance to take pause). This map here (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/mapeuropeabrate3big.gif) shows the numbers.
My hope is that when leaders in the Christian community are deciding on how to allocate charity and political capital, well-placed White Nationalists will move defunding Planned Parenthood or reimposing the gag rule (funding was contingent on nurses and doctors not mentioning the existence of abortion during the Bush administration) on Women’s Health Centers in Africa off the agenda.
A positive payoff that Bush gave to his religious base was increasing the deductible per dependent on personal income tax. This disproportionately helped above average earning White families with many kids. In France the deductible per child increases by 50% starting with the 3rd child…this is a policy that is openly seeking positive eugenics. Evangelicals and Catholics spending their political capital on this kind of policy would be far more beneficial to our cause than focusing on abortion and contraception access in Africa. Evangelicals, in particular, should also continue to work on what they do best, creating social programs for parishioners and building a strong sense of community.
Prioritizing these two issues would strengthen and increase White families and will develop morally mature youth.
Whether or not a dirt poor mother of four in the Democratic Republic of the Congo gets an abortion or long term birth control will have no impact on the moral development of American children.
All the Best,
Patrick
“But my first reaction to this and to virtually every other issue concerning white endurance and fluorishing is separation, and in the end only separation.”
This.
“We must tolerate the wholesale slaughter of innocents because diversity”…. et tu, alt-right?
The left has been shilling that tripe for decades.
“We must tolerate higher taxes because diversity.”
“We must tolerate crime because diversity.”
“We must tolerate corporate and governmental inefficiency because diversity.”
We are better than this.
Assuming that Lund’s comment is meant to be sincere, and is not clever trolling, my rispote:
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/09/crush-infamy.html
I for one support the total and merciless destruction of Christianity.
Yes, Margaret Sanger has been around a long time. She has been both demonized and idolized for mostly the wrong reasons. At least she realized that children cost money and if you cannot afford another child, there should be an option. Christians love to pretend they are for life, but they do nothing but complain if welfare is involved in keeping that child alive, especially if they have to put out for it. They would much rather take that child away from the parent and condemn them that offer financial help. Virtue signalling makes me want to vomit. I fled social work because of this Christian hypocrisy. What ghastly people they were.
How many white children would be here as well if abortion had never become legal? Abortion cheapens life and sex, strengthens feminism, and leads to the condition we find ourselves in today.
So you are against science then? Do you know how many women died in childbirth from puerperal fever? I didn’t think so. Christians thought the women deserved it for some nebulous sin, until it was found out that the god doctors caused it by not washing their hands after handling cadavers. They of course being Godly would not have sin on their hands. And priests telling women after they have been raped that they are to love this offspring? You know love cannot be commanded by men. So sorry. I wonder why children get neglected and women fake feelings? The issue is a lot bigger than abortion.
How many white people would there be if all forms of birth control had remained illegal? Would whites raised by single mothers and numerous “uncles” be desirable? Morality doesn’t require a Christian foundation.
Morality does not require a Christian foundation – I could not agree more. But that is not to way that all moral values incorporated in christianity should be abandoned.
I see Preston’s point, and it staggers me a bit how many of these comments here paint a picture of a necessary catastrophe if we do not have a state to help us remove the unwanted consequence of our irresponsible sexual behaviour. As if this irresponsible sexual behaviour is a necessary law of nature.
A strong white society will need people with at strong moral foundation. And I have not come across many strong moral foundations that do not incorporate a rigorous restriction on ‘free’ sexual behaviour. With that in place, abortion should be a minor problem.
Some eugenics argue for a sterilisation of the lower 2% of the population (intelligence-wise). I could agree to that.
I’m not asking for the state to remove the consequences of irresponsible behavior. Preston’s point is founded in Christian universalism which consistently disregards/minimizes the fact that we are enduring a state of low-intensity warfare against our kind. In this multiracial cesspool I care not a bit for aborted black lives. Nor do I care for the lives of aborted whiggers who would have been raised by feminist sluts.
We see in this thread those who would elevate a fictional jewish god above our race. I oppose such people, for they provide cover for the mass of Christian “heretics” of dispensational persuasion who despise me for my atheism more than Old Tyme Christian racialists whom they merely consider to be “Bad Christians” for not worshipping jews. I have plenty of experience with Christians, both Old Tyme and Dispensationalist. The former handicap us and neither type can be trusted.
Yes, it must be forbidden for us in our own Nations. What the other races do is up to them. But they can’t over populate and then swarm into our lands like swarms of locusts. Until the Great Separation is effected, we must encourage non-Whites to use birth control and bribe them to agree to sterilization.
Sickening. Goodbye forever, Counter-Currents.
Addition by subtraction. Goodbye forever More.
Your purpose is to win Christians. Our purpose is to win free-thinkers. You may use our arguments, but we will not craft them to appease you. If that is not acceptable to you, then don’t let the door smack your ass.
Abortion, like science, is a tool. It is amoral. Like any other tool it can be used for good (aborting fetuses in cases of rape, incest, disease) or evil (aborting healthy fetuses of smart and beautiful parents becaues the baby was unplanned). The question is not whether to use abortion (it being a tool, we should use it), but how to use it properly. If we can’t agree on that, then there’s something wrong with the nature of this conversation because it indicates we aren’t using the same moral foundations.
Perhaps a better approach, in that case, would be to discuss upon which moral foundations this conversation hinges – my guess is that it is somewhere mixed up between care/harm, liberty/oppression, and sanctity/degradation. So if the conversation isn’t moving forward, then maybe we need to clarify how the discussion impinges on each of the pillars listed above to find the root cause of the disagreement.
I think there are a whole host of unintended consequences of Planned Parenthood (PP) that your analysis overlooks as is common with all social meddling. For instance, the people who chose abortion are probably more responsible than average precisely because they have the foresight to see the cost of an unwanted pregnancy and probably smarter. So there is a dysgenic effect or skew on the population in question. Irresponsible mothers are having pregnancies because the state is subsidizing them and they are being paid to breed; nearly all state benefits are tied to having children under the age of 18. PP has no effect on those mothers. So PP is in part creating the pathology in the black community because it affects the supply of responsible cohorts while doing nothing about the growth of irresponsible ones.
This is a good and healthy debate that underscores a dividing line in the “movement.” I want to cite two pragmatic reasons for my fervent opposition to Christianity, apart from Nietszschean and scientific concerns.
1. Dual loyalty. Debates like this inevitably bring out from the pro-Christian side that for them religion trumps race. For others, race trumps all else. This is a division that can never be healed or plastered over. There is a dual loyalty here, with the loyalty to Christianity more important than White racial survival. If the “final battle” came down to White atheism/pagans vs. Colored Christianity, could you trust these Christianity Uber Alles types to side with the former rather than the latter?
2. Totalitarian thought control. When Nietzsche claimed “God is dead” he meant that belief in the Christian god was dead among many educated people and within large segments of society as a whole. These folks just don’t get it: we do not believe in this stuff. But they want to force, to coerce belief. The best example of this was in the Amren religious debate in the 1990s, where one pro-Christian writer wrote his ‘solution’ to racialists who do not believe. Why, he argued, they should simply feign belief – make believe, act one way while secretly believing another. For the “good of society” sit in the church and go through the motions even if you secretly think it is absolute crap.
Really! How is that different from Russians in the USSR being forced to mouth Marxist platitudes while they secretly long ago lost faith in that doctrine? How is it different from Whites today forced to undergo “diversity training” and praise a multiculturalism that they secretly despise? And why do Christians hold their faith so cheap, that they would be satisfied with full churches even if many in attendance secretly loathe and despise the proceedings? Why are they so insecure in their beliefs that the existence of disbelief in colleagues drives them to distraction?
And by the way, correlation does not imply causation. One could say “the race declined when people started using electricity and flying in airplanes.” So, shut down your computers, shut off your light, light a candle and read the Bible. Why not that?
I wish I could up-vote comments in these threads, because this deserves to be at the top. Thank you Theodore for parsing this. As much as I would like for Christians to be included in a big-tent approach to WNism, I find their puerile moral handwringing to be a complete waste of space in what would otherwise be an interesting and productive debate – in this case about the proper use of abortion in a healthy society. The relative importance of each of the moral foundations for non-Christian WNists is probably about the same as that of Christian WNists, which on the surface makes it appear as if we have the same interests; however our values are often (perhaps even usually) at odds. I would also add “magical reasoning” to your shortlist.
Well it’s nothing new: many of the Greek and Roman Elite didn’t believe in all of the gods in a literal sense. Yet they didn’t mock their own people. Likewise, Jefferson didn’t believe in Christianity per se, but he would never mock the people like modern atheists do. That being said, I agree with you that there is a Divide that can be breached here unless and until a new interpretation of Christianity is formulated.
It’s true that many atheists mock Christians. I for one am not doing so. My point is that it is the Christians who are the aggressors here. My original viewpoint was “live and let live.” I became more militantly anti-Christian when I realized that – as this comments thread makes clear – for Christian racialists, religion trumps race, they don’t believe that the West has any validity outside Christianity, and that non-believers should be coerced to go to church.
Indeed, they mock atheists by arguing that our atheism is somehow responsible for White racial decline.
Well at least we will not have to sterilize all those rappers and footballers. We can never have too many of them in the world.
The authors of Freakonomics attribute the fall of crime rates in the 90s to the effects of abortion being legalized. They don’t put a racial angle on it but they demonstrate that abortion has a huge impact that we don’t immediately see. Le Brun does a good job of helping us imagine this unseen impact by describing it as the nonexistence of 40 new Detroits.
Assuming that, with respect to abortion, some people will always side with the woman and others with the unborn child, pro life WNs could direct their anti-abortion efforts to largely white areas whereas pro choice WNs could focus on keeping alive abortion clinics in majority black areas. Entryist strategies to these ends could be adopted. All souls worthy of heaven are given a new glorified body according to Christianity, but if you’re a white nationalist it makes sense to reach out to souls with earthly bodies most like yours because it would probably be more effective.
For me abortion would ideally be illegal but not unless contraceptive measures are adopted among blacks to take up the slack of 40 Detroits potentially being created. (The trouble is that I’m not sure even the best contraceptive is of any use to someone without the forethought and agency to use it effectively.) Of course even if a contraceptive were to compensate for the demographic effect of abortion, all contraceptives other than natural family planning are currently prohibited by church doctrine. It’s inescapable that on some level demographic common sense and church teaching conflict.
Very sensible and well put.
I agree that this pope is a dick. But that does not mean we need Planned Parenthood. Abortion is evil. Killing innocent babies is evil. It does not matter if the baby is brown, yellow, or white it is innocent and has a right to life. And the round-about argument that PP is more than abortion won’t cut it. If PP simply advocated positive eugenics rather than negative or punitive eugenics (racial extermination) people would find this controversial and distasteful but hardly immoral.
Once again, we see the dividing line, proving the point of my previous comment.
Let us propose a thought experiment. Assume that we can set up a scenario in which it is 100% absolutely guaranteed that every single aborted fetus will be non-White, with many of those Negroes. We will absolutely guarantee that not a single White fetus is aborted, only Colored ones.
So, what are the views here? The Christians will still vehemently oppose abortion as much as before, since all the Colored fetuses are innocent and deserve life. This will have the net effect of increasing Colored numbers, worsening the racial situation. On the other hand, in this scenario, the non-Christian White racialists would be filled with joy, would do everything possible to promote more, more, more abortion.
This is no mere “minor point.” This isn’t something that can be swept under the rug. These are irreconcilable differences. How can viewpoints so diametrically opposed, so orthogonal to each other, be part of the same “movement?” Answer: they can’t.
I would like to make two more points on the issue of innocent babies being killed.
First, the German babies who died at Dresden were innocent, as were the Japanese babies who died at Hiroshima. Yet, those bomber crews are popularly considered heroes of the “Greatest Generation,” not murderers. In war, innocents – including babies and unborn fetuses – die. Typically, if you consider that your people are being subjected to genocide, you can consider yourself at war. If the enemy chooses to abort their own unborn children, why protest?
Second, looking at Yockey’s concept of Culture Parasitism, we can ask: All the White babies who go unborn because their living space is already occupied by fast-breeding coloreds – are not all those unborn White babies innocent as well? Don’t they deserve to live? Who mourns for them?
The Pope, a Marxist Jesuit, almost certainly approves of abortion since he is hardly a Christian at all, assuming he even is. His anti-abortion stance is almost certainly a political one, just bringing the people along slowly. One is reminded of Obama and Hillary being against gay marriage a few short years ago, just waiting for “when the stars are right” to come true.
More articles like this are coming from all sides I hope. Pro-Whites will come to realize how strident they must be.
Universalist religion is the enemy of diversity. The White race is the most diverse of races.
Embrace supremacy or die out. That will be the determinating factor. How is it that so many billions have come to live? They will all die regardless as will we all. The posterity of those who take responsibility will prevail in the end.
“I would object to legalized abortion even if it did eventually entail our destruction as a people. ” — Matt Parrott
Comments?
I’d love to hear you and Vox Day discuss this article.
“I would object to legalized abortion even if it did eventually entail our destruction as a people. ” — Matt Parrott
Did he really say that?
I think it clear: we need a movement. not the “movement” that exists, and this real movement needs to have an ideological core of fundamental beliefs. And that core must start with the premise that racial survival trumps all else.
Thus, Christian traditionalists could not be, should not be, and would not be, part of this real movement I do not consider “one of us” anyone who would value the sanctity of a Negro fetus’ life over the survival of their own people.
Yes, he really said it.
As much as we may disagree with such people, we should also respect their ideological purity, and their devotion to a core set of fundamental beliefs. Their core of Christian support of the sanctity of all human (sic) life means that they’d be willing to see their race die rather than oppose the legalized abortion of a Negro fetus. We may not like that position, but let us be honest – it was at least partially due to such firmness of belief and purpose that Christianity generated martyrs and rose to a dominant position in the West.
Contrast the “movement” in which every detail is nitpicked and endlessly debated, in which one is hard pressed to find similar absolute core beliefs. Racialism can learn much from those they oppose – didn’t Saint Adolf learn from the Marxists (Marxism being a secular religion with similar adherence to core beliefs)?
Thus, the appeal of a Yockey even to those who reject his writings on race and on “pessimisn” – these areas of disagreement, although very important, are still details. Yockey’s core belief was in the Imperium, the Unity of the West, where all Western peoples would actualize a High Culture. Yockey willingly died for that vision. That is why he is remembered today, and has influence today, compared to the myriad conservative mainstreamers, whose names and compromises are today deservedly forgotten.
The pope is also opposed to genocide, not just abortion; should we, then, support its implementation so long as the other races are on the receiving end? This would certainly improve our proportion of the world population vis-à-vis non-Europeans, just as abortion would. Of course we shouldn’t! Without moral considerations, we are not who we are; we were once the most idealistic race, but now unfortunately I see that even within our ranks many are sociopaths. Hoping for other races to have fewer babies is a failing strategy, certainly not worth the great moral abyss foreshadowed by it. We should build up our numbers not by promoting abortion for blacks and other non-whites, but by having replacement-level birthrates. All other solutions are meaningless.
Slow genocide is policy in every white country, but only for the white population. Abortion is one form of mass murder that is currently legal and actually benefits whites demographically. Given that we all have limited time and resources, which evil do you think we should focus on stopping?
Great essay, it changed my point of view.
I want to express my strong support for this essay.
A lot of comments tend to be points of disagreement. Thus, when something resonates well with us, I think we are obliged to express our approval.
Thank you, Patrick.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.