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.
Remembering Charles Krafft: September 19, 1947–June 12, 2020
Remembering Francis Parker Yockey: September 18, 1917–June 16, 1960
Is Nicki Minaj Super Bass-ed?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 370 Greg Johnson, Mark Gullick, & Stephen Paul Foster Ponder The Deep Questions
Remembering D. H. Lawrence:
September 11, 1885–March 2, 1930
Le Nationalisme Blanc est-il haineux ?
The Counter-Currents 9/11 Symposium
Qu’est-ce que le nationalisme américain ?