Abortion & White NationalismGreg Johnson
Spanish translation here
An acrimonious debate about abortion has broken out in American White Nationalist circles. There are two contexts in which White Nationalists should discuss abortion: present-day political reality and the ideal political orders we wish to establish some day.
Although statistics vary, in the United States today, around 50% of black pregnancies, 25% of Hispanic pregnancies, and 14% of white pregnancies end in abortion. Since from 10 to 20% of babies born to white mothers have non-white fathers, we can assume that some white women are aborting non-white babies. Also, since Jews are counted as white, and secular Jews have extremely low fertility, it is reasonable to assume that some white women who get abortions are actually Jewish. Non-European Caucasians are also counted as whites, and presumably they too depress the genuine white abortion rate even further. In terms of overall percentages of abortions, white women get about 1/3 of all abortions, which means that 2/3 of abortions are obtained by non-white women.
Patrick Le Brun has calculated that without Roe v. Wade, the US black population would be 50% larger than it is at present. The aim of White Nationalism is to prevent our race from being demographically swamped by non-whites — today by combating anti-white policies, eventually through the creation of homogeneously white homelands. Thus abortion is good for whites in America, because it has postponed, perhaps by decades, the date that we will become a minority in this democracy.
I don’t approve of mass murder as a method of changing the ethnic balance of society. But in the case of abortion, the Left has worked fanatically to institute and maintain a form of mass murder that actually works in our demographic favor. It also works in our favor culturally: since liberals and anti-natalists abort more of their offspring than conservatives and pro-natalists, abortion shrinks the white Left as well as its non-white voting blocs.
Given that American White Nationalists have very limited political capital, it frankly seems nutty to spend one iota of effort combating abortion, which is working in our demographic favor, when we could be working to cut off immigration, which is our primary demographic threat. It also seems nutty to spend any more time debating this issue, especially since some parties don’t really care about discussing the merits of abortion in either context but are merely venting their personal resentments and, they imagine, raiding the donor lists of their rivals.
Of course if the racial balance of American abortions changed to our disadvantage, I would support abortion restrictions. And in European countries, where white abortion rates are high, I favor restricting abortion today. The only political absolute in the present context is white racial survival.
Abortion in the Ethnostate
The position I favor on abortion in a White Nationalist society is that some abortions should be forbidden, others should be mandatory, but under no circumstances should they simply be a matter of a woman’s choice. I am pro-abortion, not pro-choice. And I am pro-abortion only in very limited circumstances, which means that I would ban almost all abortions that take place today.
From a biological point of view, life begins at conception. A fertilized egg is not a part of the mother or the father, but a distinct organism at the earliest stage of its life. Abortion, therefore, is the killing of a human being.
Now there might be good reasons for killing some human beings. But to leave that decision up to the mother alone is simple barbarism. It is indecent to allow children to be killed arbitrarily. Once a woman gets pregnant, her bodily autonomy is over. It is not just her life and her body any more, because another life, another body is growing within her.
Fathers should have just as much say in abortion as mothers. Moreover, the interests of the unborn child should be represented as well, and they should be given far more weight than the mere convenience of the parents. To obtain an abortion, both parents and an advocate for the unborn child should have to appear before a judge, who could in effect sentence an unborn child to death under certain circumstances.
There are three circumstances under which I would countenance abortion.
First, in cases in which an unborn child has genetic defects that would make it impossible to lead a normal life, and thus make it a burden on its parents and society, abortion should be an option. Indeed, it might be desirable to slowly make such abortions mandatory. Parents burdened with defective children often lack the time and resources to have healthy children. Thus giving birth to defective children in effect aborts potential healthy children. This is not really “eugenic” abortion, since profoundly defective people seldom reproduce, and if there were any danger of them doing so, they could be sterilized.
Second, in cases in which carrying a child to term would kill or severely injure the mother, abortion should be an option — although I would also applaud women who choose to sacrifice their lives for their children.
Third, in cases of miscegenation, abortion should be mandatory. Of course, in an all-white society, opportunities for miscegenation will be eliminated. But if a woman gets pregnant on a vacation in Jamaica, an abortion should be a mandatory if she wishes to return to white society.
Although even restrictive abortion laws make exceptions for cases of rape and incest, it makes no sense to kill a child simply because his father is a criminal or a creep. Rape and incest should be punished in the perpetrators, not their children. Children do not inherit the guilt of their fathers.
Abortion refers to the killing of an unborn child in the mother’s womb. But with in vitro fertilization, it is now routine to fertilize eggs that will never be implanted. For eugenic purposes, it might be very useful to fertilize a dozen eggs, sequence their genomes, choose only to implant the best, and wash the rest down the drain. But no decent society can countenance such casual killing of healthy human beings.
Every social system inevitably incorporates incentives that encourage some people to reproduce more and others less. The only choice is whether these incentives are eugenic or dysgenic. A White Nationalist society must shoulder the responsibility of eugenics. But eugenic policies have to value those who are alive today as well as future generations. This means that we should not kill or otherwise harm people for eugenic purposes. Instead, we should give positive incentives to raise the fertility of some and lower the fertility of others.
But all this is just utopian daydreaming. We can argue about ideal abortion policies when we have regained political control over our destiny. Frankly, simply living in a society in which all arguments about abortion and taxes and environmentalism are between white people alone would be utopia enough for me.
In the meantime, we need to focus our limited time, energy, and resources on fighting against immigration and other trends that are promoting white extinction. But in the United States at least, abortion is not among them.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 527 Machiavellianism & More
The Machiavellian Method
Enoch Powell, poslední tory
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 526 Cyan Quinn Reports from CPAC & More
Remembering Richard M. Weaver (March 3, 1910–April 1, 1963)
La Russie et l’Ukraine, à nouveau
An Open Letter to Scott Adams
I think you’ve struck a good balance here, Greg. In a multi-racial society abortion helps to keep Whites from being completely swamped. I hate to see Whites having abortions, but if other races want to do it then that’s up to them. The evil of our society being over-run and destroyed far out ways the evil of legalized abortion in my opinion.
I am against abortion but as you say its working for us. Also, I admire your honesty in that you say you are pro-abortion and not pro-choice. I despise those pro-choice word weasels.
Having said I am against abortion I have to say that I am also against prolonging life at any cost. To allow nature to take its course and keep life in balance, i.e., the baby must be born, the other side of the coin is allowing them to die when nature calls. Parents should go on and have more children when the first one is, cough, cough, splutter, a dud and not obsess about the unfortunate tragedy that happened – yes I know they can be a blessing for some. But in so many cases today we are not living longer but are merely prolonging the dying experience.
Unfortunately, if we allowed them all to die I would have to find a real job.
Isn’t that a little barbaric? To continue suffering on all accounts when it is not necessary?
I have been pregnant and had children, and as much as I adore my kids, I have hated every pregnancy, especially the final months. Giving birth is physical trauma. It’s only the joy of beautiful, healthy offspring that makes it worth it.
Also, the longer you care for your baby, inside or out, the more bonded you are to it. Why make a mother go through that horrific loss, when it was not necessary? Why is it more moral to let a child die than to abort it before it is born? If its fate is sealed, then why not do it in the least painful way possible?
And not to be an autiste, but there is a lot of sunk cost into carrying and birthing a dud- a lot of time and energy that could have otherwise been spent having viable offspring.
This has to be tied up in god stuff, because it’s very not rational.
You certainly raise some interesting points. My attitude is that we all have our crosses to bear and suffering is part of life – not that we want to encourage it.
I don’t want to get into arguments over abortion on a WN site as there are tons of issues we all disagree on to some degree or another and I imagine that euthanasia will soon be on the list. My sweetie is in an Alzheimer’s unit slowly dying. I had her on Dale Bredesen’s (Buck Institute UCLA) nutritional supplements to which she was responding but her family and the hospital regard her as a dud and would rather have her dead than have nutritional supplements undermine the lucrative medical industry.
The main issue for us is whether we give life a chance or play God. Bredesen or the established system? Death tends to be rather permanent which brings us round to the “god stuff.” Again it is choice. The misogynists in Washington, New York and Ottawa love Allah whereas Lew Rockwell https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/phil-maymin/babylonian-talmud/ seems to be promoting the Talmud. I prefer Jesus myself. Time and chance happen to all men He said so why not give the baby a chance? And of course My ways are not your ways and so on.
But you are right. It’s not rational. Or as a better man than me once wrote, The world is a stage and we all play our part. Play on my dear,play on. And blessings to you and yours.
It’s the horrific pictures and accounts of abortions that give many of our people a knee-jerk reaction to be against it. I have to admit that this was my thinking and it especially hits you when you have kids of your own. You can’t help but think that that could’ve been your child laying there in pieces. However, you have won the argument Greg. Admittedly my only concern really is white women aborting healthy children. It reminds me of that feminist who had her abortion filmed and wrote about how empowering it was. Well, I think it would’ve been more empowering to raise her child in an incubator and put a bullet through her head on the operating table. After all, it’s not the kids fault that it’s mother is a crazy nut. Cheers.
Again, the most balanced and prudent on yet another issue. You present an excellent argument.
“…Although even restrictive abortion laws make exceptions for cases of rape and incest, it makes no sense to kill a child simply because his father is a criminal or a creep. Rape and incest should be punished in the perpetrators, not their children. Children do not inherit the guilt of their fathers…”
I don’t agree with this. No woman should be burdened by giving birth to a child from a criminal who overpowered her. Besides, it would be very difficult for such a mother to “love” her child. A child born from incest runs a great risk to be genetically deficient. Talk about “eugenics”! In both cases such children will be burdened for life with the shame of their origin.
Ideally abortion should be allowed in the following cases :
1) rape, 2) incest, 3) serious danger to the life of the mother, 4) serious genetic defects of the embryo.
Miscegenation should be treated in the same way as interracial marriage or adoption : persons who want that should be allowed to do so, but they should leave the country.
As for the higher abortion rates of Blacks and Hispanics, that may be fortunate for White demographics, but still it is morally unacceptable. A better way is to propagate sterilization among such groups. Sterilization should be made mandatory for single mothers on welfare. Perhaps also for male criminals of whatever race. That would be truly “eugenic”!
Babies conceived in rape can he given up for adoption.
The risk of genetic defects is not why people want to abort the children of incest. And in any case, prenatal screenings can now sequence the entire genome of a child and determine if any problems are present. If such problems are present, then of course abortion should be an option.
The reason that rape and incest are exceptions to most abortion laws is merely pandering to irrationality.
No way, that is absolutely terrible.
Say a 17 year old virgin was raped and impregnated. Under such rules she is is forced to bear that child and give birth to it and those life long complications.
How is bearing a child and then giving it up for adoption a life-long complication?
It’s a lifelong complication because women who give babies up for adoption tend to experience long-term regret and sorrow moreso than women who abort. You are literally suggesting imposing long-term suffering on an innocent woman who did nothing, all for the sake of some criminal sprog.
Furthermore, sexual offending has a huge genetic component. A twin study out of Denmark demonstrated this. Criminality in general has genetic underpinnings. Do ALL children of criminals grow up to be criminals? No of course not. But plenty do. It is eugenic to abort the babies of fetuses.
If a white society aborted all rape fetuses over a significant length of time, rape would be eliminated. The only reason it persists is because we haven’t done a good enough job of making sure it is completely non-viable in a reproductive sense. Abort rape fetuses, sterilize rapists, and strongly encourage any children the rapist may already have had to consent to sterilization, and rape is gone even quicker. Same deal with many other criminal behaviors.
I would have to side with abortion for rape victims. Beyond psychological damage, the female body experiences long term physical consequences of carrying a child to term as well.
I understand you only want to consider abortion under eugenic premises but we have to consider that, on top of stamping out criminality, preserving the mother’s physical health for a wanted child by a virtuous father is very compelling.. female track records for choosing good fathers aside.
If long term consequences of pregnancy are grounds for abortion, that would be reason to abort all pregnancies, not just those conceived through rape.
I realize that it might be more common, but can one assume that a raped woman is a single woman? I cannot imagine the gulf that would open up between a wife and husband if a woman were raped and were forced to carry that child to term, adoption or not.
Whether this scenario is seriously worth a legislator’s attention, or more worthy of a TV melodrama, I honestly don’t know.
My,my, that is exactly what Christian priests say to women, as if there was no psychological effect from rape or incest that could affect the deveopment of a fetus.
Yes, an honest to goodness rape could inflict some harm on the resulting fetus through the mother’s 9 months of distress, but on the other hand, there’s all these disturbed and physically disabled people today who came from people who really wanted those babies. Who’s to say.
But I don’t blame a raped girl or woman for wanting to get rid of it, even though abortion is inherently repulsive. It’s not a perfect world, is it. I’d say, let her have the abortion as soon as possible after conception.
I do think there needs to be a general rule and then some kind of board of arbitration and I do not mean just doctors, people of the community also and not lobbyists from either side. Genetic testing is not going to go away. It can only get more precise, unless the whole thing is a fraud. I would prefer genetic testing than stats, for there will always be someone who can rise above that kind of determinism. Doctors may say there is a 50/50 chance and well some survive and some don’t, so there is something more than just stats here. If they can prove a criminal is genetically inclined, who takes the risk and who decides? I think it is wishful thinking that abortion or crime is ever going to go away. For even some criminals who do the time do change. For others it is just further education in crime. How do we know which it is to be with each individual? Same with abortion, there are some women who can rise about the effects of rape and embrace the child, but for others no way, they will fall apart and do harm.
The other issue is about who raises the child? If men really do not want to raise another man’s child for it means being a cuck, then what? For even in adoption it is another man’s child. The whole issue of surrogate mothers is a mess too. However, I agree with Dr. Johnson that the most important issue is a white homeland, then we can work out the details around reproduction which would be rather interesting.
You once said in an interview with Robert Stark that you would favour compulsory abortion of mixed race fetuses. Is this compatible with what you are saying here about post-rape abortions?
If the rapist is a non-white, of course.
Ok, but forgive me. You are adopting a fairly “way out” position here which has surprised many readers. Perhaps it’s the right position. But I think you ought to go back to first principles and explain in moral terms under what conditions abortion is permissible or mandatory. (At least, I assumed that you were arguing deontologically, rather than in terms of social utility or political expediency, when you began to address the issue of abortion in rape cases). Do you take the position that the fetus is a moral person from the moment of conception?
I thought that last point was fairly clear.
“The reason that rape and incest are exceptions to most abortion laws is merely pandering to irrationality.”
You can’t be serious. If the health of a society is determined by a strong family unit—a loving family unit—then how does a world with many “rape babies” being forced onto women—in turn producing children whose only paternal connection is to a guy that raped his mother or someone he can also call daddy and grandpa—produce a healthy society? Irrational would be a proclamation or insinuation that families are the strongest when mothers and fathers provide a loving and stable environment for their children, but then claim that it’s also rational to bind mothers, families and society with unwanted children or children who have to live the rest of their lives knowing they were produced not by love and passion, but by violence and perversion. I wouldn’t want to be that kid, and I wouldn’t want anyone else to have to be that kid.
Women with unwanted pregnancies can always give the baby up for adoption.
Can we agree that if the rapist impregnates a woman, then he is punished more severely for his crime- as it is a negative consequence far greater than the rape itself…. Torture on par with early medieval Protestants. In public.
If the women chose to keep the baby the family of the now deceased rapist should have their wages garnished to help care for the child.
If the point is to prevent rape, then the punishment should be very severe (of course false rape accusations would also be severe- but I assume a less insane society would have much less rape- imagined or otherwise).
I’m not really joking here, pregnancy and birth are physically traumatic- I can’t imagine the mental anguish on top of that trauma. The punishment would have to exceed rape, 9 months of physical hardship, the trauma of birth, the mental anguish of either caring for it or giving it up for adoption, the permanent physical changes, the decreased market value of the woman….
A balanced position. Abortion must be thought about from the point of view of the betterment of society and from, of course, our side as a general side. It has to be decided upon by leaders with higher motivations than “muh body” or “muh career.” William Shockley’s views were sound too, albeit they were much fitter when civic nationalism or multiethnicity still seemed workable, making IQ important enough to supersede any reference to ethnicity.
I’d like to add my voice to those who’re grateful to Greg for a closely argued examination of the abortion issue. I nevertheless have my doubts as to whether abortion should ever be compulsory. My own view is that children should be taught eugenics and racial hygiene with the same moral fervour as religious morality has traditionally been taught by the Christian churches. If a few women transgress and have a half-caste child that might better be regarded as a family tragedy rather than as an option for legalized murder.
Did someone mention Christianity?
Richard Kelly Hoskins wrote The Phineas Priesthood which elaborated on how Phineas ( Numbers 24:8 ) killed the Israelite and the Moabite committing whoredom and thus stopped the plague killing the children of Israel. The law being that both had to die. When the woman – but not the man – was brought before Jesus for a similar crime she was merely told to go home and don’t do it again. On the other hand (Deuteronomy 23:2) a mixed race (bastard back then) shall not enter the church (as it is now) until the tenth generation. I guess race mixing is a bit like abortion while wrong there is no point in going of the deep end as in time we will get it all sorted.
Re mandatory abortions of fetuses with defects: I don’t know about anyone else here, but I sure don’t want any part of a nation, white or otherwise, that requires a pregnant woman to go for screening of any kind whatsoever. It makes far more sense to do it as in the olden days: when a badly defective child was born, it was given minimal care and then allowed to die if ordinary, traditional care of the newborn didn’t work. This is correct for all parties concerned, when you go with Mother Nature. No violation anywhere. (Thanks, Sandy, for your comment.)
Further, to talk about genetic defects means a slippery slope. Just who is going to decide what constitutes a killable defect, such as a fetus with six fingers on one hand? There’s enough nut cases around who believe in the idea of human perfection. And by the way, I did not go for any screenings, not even ultrasound, with my pregnancies. The state doesn’t own me, my born and healthy progency, or my fetuses. Nor does it have a responsibility to correct imperfect children.
If I had birthed a seriously defective child, I would have wanted it to die, but unfortunately, those who run the world would not have allowed that to occur. They keep seriously ill babies alive along enough to be able to hand it over to the hapless parents with a wish for a happy life. Which of course cannot happen.
To sum up: Mandatory abortions must never be allowed to take place. Instead, just allow nature to take its course. That is the only way to end up with a relatively stable and healthy country. Indeed, it is the only thing that allowed us to become great.
Pre-marital screening has been official government policy in Cyprus since the 70s.
It is considered a great success & has reduced the number of children born with serious genetic conditions. In this case, prevention is better than cure, but i still would reserve the right for couples to have abortions if their unborn child has been diagnosed with a crippling genetic disease. It is an incredible burden on families & provides little to no quality of life to the individual effected. I wouldn’t wish that particular fate on my worse enemies.
As for the article, I think it’s great, & I largely agree with it. The only thing I disagree with would be regarding incest & rape. I think incest should require state intervention to terminate the unnatrual hell spawn (we are not Semites, incest is not consistent with traditional European breeding norms), & rape is one of the few instances in which a woman can decide if she chooses to keep the child.
Why waste time, resources and the health of the mother? Why not use science to save on all three. Being pregnant is a long and very arduous process, even when healthy children are concerned. Giving birth is certainly one of the most risky things a woman will do in her life.
Not to mention the fact that the gestation, birth, and infant care process causes deep bonds between mother and baby. Why extend the suffering of both infant and all caregivers involved? Why involve more risk and heartache?
Your suggestion is frankly barbaric. This isn’t Sparta.
Inferior or outright defective babies must be allowed to get born, not aborted – and then die if normal, simple care cannot keep them alive. Nature at work. We’ve had medical technology “curing” defective fetuses and newborns for a few generations now, and I don’t see a healthier population. Look around you. Just about everyone’s held together with wax and string.
The heartbreak of a seriously defective child being allowed to die is nothing compared to the expense, labor and misery of trying to care for that child for the next 40 years. Women have been birthing sickly babies and then seeing them die since the dawn of time. Coping with it is part of being an adult.
Nobody is saying to take an unwanted, inferior baby and expose it to the elements. I am talking about humane, natural and simple care for those children who don’t look like they have much of a future, then let God decide. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the case of Robert Latimer and his desperate killing of his daughter, who was severely mentally and physically ill, to alleviate her endless pain.
I have been pregnant and had children, and as much as I adore my kids, I have hated every pregnancy, especially the final month
Well, I loved being pregnant. It felt right. Little to no discomfort. Pregnancies, birth and nursing constitute rites of passages to be embraced, not hated. And the death of unhealthy babies is part of that scenario.
Giving birth is certainly one of the most risky things a woman will do in her life.
In general, it most certainly is not. Only if she has more pregnancies than her particular body and mind can healthfully deal with, which was a problem in some societies.
Why is it more moral to let a child die than to abort it before it is born? If its fate is sealed, then why not do it in the least painful way possible?
Nothing painless about abortion, not for the fetus and not for the woman. Maybe a visit to lifesitenews.com will change your mind.
Various eugenics methods exist that do not rely on abortions, recent publication from American Renaissance considers many of these approaches http://www.amren.com/features/2015/10/new-prospects-for-eugenics/. While Europe is on demographic suicide mission with clearly sub-replacement birth rate in most of the EU countries, Israeli women have three children on average http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4058/israel-demographic-miracle. In the mean time, when Germans decide to have more babies, they are immediately called all the names in the arsenal of liberal media, the nicest of which would be a right-wing extremists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZW6bxhMtxY.
Well thought out piece, but I have two bones to pick
1) Choosing between mutliple screened embryos will likely become scientifically possible within a couple of decades, if not sooner. It’s certainly going to be possible much sooner than actually manipulating the DNA in embryos–and the latter may not be desirable because at some point it no longer becomes your child, genetically. Positive Eugenics is probably more morally palatable to the population, and even if negative Eugenics were possible, it is best complemented with Positive Eugenics.
So you are basically closing off a great avenue for human improvement because you consider discarding a few zygotes as “casual killing of healthy human beings”
Yes, it is human life, but a clump of cells is not the same type of life as human being or even an several month old fetus. Consider the fact that many pregnancies end in miscarriage days into the pregnancy without the mother knowing it. Even if she did know it, does anyone view this as a similar tragedy as the death of an infant?
2) If you accept that rapists are usually genetically prone, do you really want to compound the emotional problems of forcing a woman to carry their rapists child to term, with the fact that said baby will likely carry criminal genes?
1. “Zygotes” is just a dehumanizing euphemism for “human being at the earliest stage of its development,” or “unborn baby.”
2. Actually, you are in a very important sense “the same” organism today and when you were a fertilized egg in your mother’s womb.
3. Yes, I would close off that avenue of human improvement.
4. “Spontaneous abortions therefore perform abortions,” does not follow. It is basically just a version of “Everybody dies, so anybody can kill anyone else.”
5. If it is OK to abort a child because his father is a criminal, obviously this applies to all such children, not just the ones conceived during rape.
Abortion is no longer necessary for preventing the spread of genetic defects in offspring, since the advent of genetic engineering means that we can simply remove these issues in the womb and a healthy baby will be produced.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think I can ever comfortably say I’m for abortion, even if it is arguable that it is for the greater purpose of white survival. I’d much rather we deported and repatriated non-whites than flirt with a practice like that.
Agree 100%. All abortion is murder as admitted by author. It’s just a matter of degrees, as with every moral issue.
“Since about 2% of babies born to white mothers have non-white fathers…”
Unfortunately, the actual current rate of racial intermixture, per data collected by the National Vital Statistics System and displayed on the website of the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control (https://nchs.beyond2020.com/vitalstats/ReportFolders /reportFolders.aspx) indicate that in 2013 a minimum of 10.7% and a maximum of 19.7% of White mothers gave birth to mixed children, with an adjusted estimate of 12.5%. In 1990 the minimum was 4.8% and the maximum 13.2%, with an adjusted estimate of 5.9%.
For the raw numbers, in 1990 2,626,500 children were born to Non-Hispanic White (NHW) mothers. The fathers of 2,279,870 of these were identified as NHW, the fathers of 124,775 or 4.7506% were identified as non-NHW, and the fathers of 221,855 or 9.7295% were not stated or identified by race or Hispanic origin.
In 2013 the figure drops to 2,129,196 children born to NHW mothers, with the fathers of 1,709,863 identified as NHW, the fathers of 227,797 or 10.6987% identified as non-NHW, and the fathers of 191,536 or 8.9957% not stated or identified by race or Hispanic origin.
If all of the “not stated” fathers were white then 89.3% of births to white women in 2013 had white fathers. This sets the upper bound. If none of the “not stated” fathers were white then in 2013 80.3% of births to white women had white fathers. This is the lower bound. On the reasonable assumption that 80% of the “not stated” fathers were white – in line with their proportion of fathers for whom race was stated/known – then 87.5% of births to white mothers had white fathers.
To put it in terms of intermixture rates, in 2013 a minimum of 10.7% of white mothers gave birth to mixed children; the maximum rate of intermixture was 19.7%; and the adjusted/estimate figure was 12.5%.
In 1990 the equivalent figures were: 4.8% (min), 13.2% (max), 5.9% (adjusted).
This is in line with my estimate that the proportion of interracial births to white mothers has been doubling approximately every twenty years since circa 1948. Since the CDC data on intermixture only go back to 1990, before that date estimates will have to do, but assuming my estimates are correct the rate of intermixture would have been about 3% in 1970 and 1.5% in 1950, which seems reasonable.
The 2% rate would probably have been true back in the early 1960s when Obama was born.
It should be recognized that perhaps 10-15% of Hispanics in the U.S. could be regarded as white by European-American standards, and that they account for more than 15% of the “intermixture” between whites and Hispanics, but then as Greg points out, Jews, Arabs, Turks, Central Asians, etc. are classified and included as NHW in the statistics and they probably roughly counter-balance the distortion caused by including white Hispanics in the nonwhite category.
Credit to Silvio Silver for locating the CDC data.
Great job on this controversy.
Greg Johnson finds the middle path.
Greg Johnson finds the middle way.
This is the best article, in the recent flurry written on abortion, that I have read.
I want to recommend a book on the subject, “ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments” by Randy Alcorn: http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Life-Answers-Pro-Choice-Arguments-Expanded/dp/1576737519
Though the author is a Christian but are arguing from a moral and philosophical point of view without going into religion. I am not a Christian, but one don’t need to be, to agree with his arguments, which are very valid.
I assume you have read Genealogy of Morality. Changed my life and total outlook.
It is incredible how pervasive slave morality is, that caring for severely defective fetuses is exalted in Christianity as some irrefutable good.
I despise the belief that the more you suffer, and the more you INVITE suffering, the more good you are.
It is a key thing we must overcome, especially the Prots (not that we’re not catching up now that we have Media Whore Cuck Pope in charge).
Why do whites look to the alien god of a different race in forming opinions about abortion?
It would seem to me that belief in the foreign God isn’t the primary reason; most good hearted folks just see abortion as inherently repulsive, then they glom their Christianity onto that feeling. (“See? God’s been on my side all along!”)
If belief in the middle eastern god as preached by various churches is the only, or the primary, reason Christians oppose abortion, they are not people I’d particularly seek to be friends with. Look at what’s happening with the Catholic church. The Marxist Jorge Bergoglio will have Catholics approving all and any abortions just because he said it’s okay – and he is supposedly Christ’s representative on earth and therefore can’t be questioned.
Grist for the mill.
It’s simply because most white Christians have convinced themselves that Jesus was actually white and not a middle eastern jew. Christmas is held on Dec 25th not because that was the day Jesus was actually born but because it was to cancel out the original pagan holiday of the winter solstice. And now many Europeans have all but forgotten the fact that they submitted to a foreign religion long ago.
Makes me wonder if Europe does submit to Islam in a couple thousand years will we forget that Islam was ever a foreign religion imposed on us much like Christianity was?
Thank you for presenting such a cogent and concise position on this issue.
Brilliant – a very thoughtful and measured article. And a classic example of the importance of Jack Donovan’s principle of “No Tears for Strangers”. A different moral world applies. My own – marginal – contribution to the war is an annual Christmas donation of a few hundred quid to a charity which works to advance abortion in Southern Africa.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Edit your comment