A White Nationalist Take on Abortion

2,422 words

Part of being a member of a dissident political movement, I’m sure, is to know how to pick your battles. I believe that most of us on the Dissident Right inherently understand this and therefore refrain from starting unnecessary trouble with forces that are – at least for the time being – allied with ours. This came to my attention recently when a Facebook friend of mine posted the following tweet from a pro-life activist organization called Live Action. He then asserted that pro-lifers are inherently anti-white and dysgenic.

I found this person’s claim to be not only interesting, but naggingly important. Are pro-lifers truly anti-white? If so, this would be a big deal – it’s not like we don’t have enough enemies on the ostensible Right already. And if enemies they indeed are, shouldn’t we then, as pro-white dissidents, put the pro-life movement in our figurative crosshairs and expose and embarrass its members as often as possible? Shouldn’t we take them on in the culture wars in the same way we take on the Never Trumpers and Conservatism, Inc.? Wouldn’t it be worth our energy and animosity to reduce their overall influence? After all, it’s their neck or ours, right?

About this, let’s just say I am skeptical.

About the dysgenics claim, however, I am not. Any present-day organization promoting unimpeded birthrates for all pregnant women is bound to oversee a net IQ drop in the population, not to mention an increased burden on the population’s government. This is so because the majority of unplanned pregnancies occur among the poor – and especially among low-performing non-whites such as blacks and Hispanics – who are most likely to have lower than average IQs, and to rely on government assistance. So, yes, by going to bat for every viable fetus, the pro-life movement is promoting dysgenics, whether they realize it or not.

As for the pro-life movement being anti-white, here are my reasons for remaining skeptical.

A person arguing that pro-lifers are anti-white would first have to get past how, by pushing for an expansive abortion ban, the pro-life movement wishes to save white fetuses as much as non-white ones. There may be individual pro-lifers who hate whites or who focus more on non-white abortions, but one would be hard-pressed to find anything in the official documents of the pro-life movement that is unambiguously anti-white (for example, a declaration that non-white fetuses are more valuable than white ones). The use of pro-black language in the above tweet can be explained by how the majority of abortions are performed on black women these days, and not necessarily by any animus against whites. Although Live Action is trying to persuade people who are anti-white, this tweet remains consistent with its anti-abortion mission statement, and is therefore not unambiguously anti-white. Further, there is a certain benefit of the doubt I am willing to grant an organization that will also tweet out the following pro-white images:

The ACLU can be called unambiguously anti-white because they posted an image of a white child waving an American flag, and then later took it down because they were told such an image is “racist.” Black Lives Matter (BLM) can also be called unambiguously anti-white since they would never post such wholesome images of white people to begin with. The same cannot be said about Live Action.

Secondly, by hinting that “racism” causes the high rate of black abortion, by demonizing the Ku Klux Klan, and by appealing to the anti-white BLM organization, Live Action seems to be engaging in the same anti-white agitprop that BLM and other anti-white organizations engage in. I will argue that these similarities are merely incidental, like claiming that birds and bats belong in the same taxonomic class because they both have wings. The language in the first tweet basically earns cheap rhetorical points by appropriating the buyer’s perspective when trying to sell him something. It’s a gimmick, really. But for BLM, such language is no gimmick; it’s their bread and butter. Therein lies the difference between the two groups. If BLM prides itself on being anti-racist (or pro-black), then, according to Live Action, it must also reject Planned Parenthood, because Planned Parenthood is historically anti-black and disproportionately aborts black fetuses.

Whites should not be offended by such a tack for five basic reasons:

• Whites are not the target of the tweet and therefore are not being pressured to change their behavior. The tweet aims to change black minds by revealing the inconsistencies in their worldviews and challenging them to do something about it.
• Such pro-black signaling is the exception, not the rule, for Live Action.
• The tweet attempts to drive a wedge into our enemies by pitting pro-black organizations against the pro-choice movement. Imagine what a boon it would be for the Right if BLM and similar pro-black organizations would suddenly start protesting pro-choice rallies and calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Think of all the energy and money they would waste. Think of how difficult it would be for politicians to keep such warring factions together under one tent. One can only dream of dividing and conquering political enemies in such a fashion.
• The tactic the tweet employs is destined to fail, and is therefore harmless. Supporters of abortion today do not care about century-old, politically incorrect quotes from Margaret Sanger. They care about killing fetuses, and they won’t denounce a perfectly functional fetus-killing organization for what amounts to ancient history. Furthermore, black leaders understand that pro-choice people are more or less their political allies these days and will do as little as possible to upset that sugar cart. Blacks would just as soon vote Republican because it was the party of Lincoln.
• The tweet is sloppily written. How can one blame racism for what amounts to blacks killing blacks? Yes, one can do so with great difficulty, but such tortured logic does not appear in the tweet. Rather than accusing Live Action of some anti-white ulterior motive, the likelier explanation for this tweet is that its writer just wasn’t thinking very clearly when he wrote it. Who knows? Maybe the employee who did the tweeting got in trouble for it?

Then there’s the argument that being pro-black for any reason is inherently anti-white, since blacks have had a counter-civilizational impact on white society through their high rates of crime, illegitimacy, corruption, drug abuse, dependence upon public assistance, and so on. According to this argument, any organization promoting the idea that whites and blacks have equal value (as Live Action does) are both lying and working against the racial interests of whites. Although there is truth in this position, it’s illogical to call it anti-white. A large presence of free blacks would have the same negative impact on any civilization, not just white ones. If the population of Japan were to become fifteen percent black, then opposing black abortions there would become anti-Japanese according to this argument. For something to be truly anti-white, it would have to close – or at least tighten – such logical loopholes. This argument speaks less to an anti-white agenda than to the dysgenic one mentioned earlier, which I believe is correct. For the former charge to stick, one would have to show how the presence of blacks retards the progress of white societies while not having a similar impact on non-white/non-black societies. I don’t think this can be done.

The following thought experiment further explains my skepticism. If the pro-life movement were anti-white to its core, then it would be reasonable to presume that their opponents – the pro-choice movement – would be pro-white to their core. After all, these are two diametrically opposed movements which fight like cats hanging by their tails. But when we look at where pro-choice people fall on the Love-Hate Whitey axis, we see that a good number of them are also anti-white. Such people tend to be feminists, socialists, and Leftists; that is, people who are likely to lump everyone on the Right into one group in order to loathe them. It is from these groups that whites find their greatest racial enemies.

Can opposite sides of such a divisive issue have identical hatred of white people? If so, then the white-hate cancels itself out and can be removed from both sides of the equation. Sort of like in algebra:

(Pro-Life x -1) + Anti-White = Pro-choice + Anti-White

If pro-lifers are indeed anti-white, the above equation suggests that being anti-white is not an essential part of either movement.

We have also seen the argument which states that if an organization is not explicitly pro-white, then by default it must be considered anti-white, and hence anathematized. If you’re not with us, then you’re against us. This is a consistent argument, and there are theoretical circumstances under which such a radical, us-versus-them position might be necessary. In my opinion, these circumstances would have to involve an immediate military threat that could spell defeat within the span of single-digit years, not a demographic one working over the course of a couple of centuries. Further, if we assume such an extreme posture, aren’t we closing the door on possibly winning white people over when we lash out at them? White Nationalists tend to have a Marxian faith that the future will play out in their favor. Greg Johnson’s White Nationalist Manifesto is filled with such prognostications. Give mutli-racialism enough time, and whites will see not only how it works against their group interests, but that it was designed to do so. At that point, whites will work together to recapture what they lost, or forge something new from the rainbow wreckage of the postmodern world.

Not to give away the ending or anything, but here is a quote from the last chapter of Johnson’s manifesto:

There is good reason for optimism, however, simply because racial and ethnic diversity within the same society are sources of disunity, conflict, and the erasure of distinct identities. Anti-white ethnic cleansing can only be maintained by lies and moral blackmail – and, when these fail, by intimidation and outright violence. One can flout reality for a long time, as long as you can make other people pay the price. But eventually, multicultural regimes lose their strength through division and chaos and their legitimacy through lies and broken promises.

By contrast, since White Nationalism is in harmony with reality, our strength will only grow, because we understand that it arises from unity, and our credibility will only grow, because it is based on speaking the truth.

How can White Nationalism arise from unity in the future if White Nationalists today promote disunity with other whites who have not declared themselves to be our enemies? Wouldn’t that repel more than attract? Wouldn’t that make it harder down the road for white people to accept our views, even while historical forces are pressuring them to do so?

It is possible for a political organization to be neither pro- nor anti-white. In many cases, such people are honest conservatives whose greatest sin is racial naïveté. Many of them just assume that non-whites are just as nice as they are, and can better themselves in America as long as they embrace Jesus or the Constitution or some other ideological framework, and come to this country legally. Of course, they’re wrong. Of course, their good intentions often help our enemies. But this is a far cry from being an enemy in themselves.

I know this will sound hokey, but when I look at a white conservative who isn’t unambiguously anti-white, I see not a traitor, but an opportunity. Keeping avenues of communication with these people as open and as active as possible will only facilitate their rightward journey once historical pressures compel them to lose their racial naïveté. And in the meantime, we can appreciate the good they do in foiling Leftist causes and making our enemies work harder in the culture wars. The people at Live Action may want to defund Planned Parenthood because they want to stop abortion. I, on the other hand, would like to defund it mainly because it is a fundraising tool for the Democratic Party. Does it really matter if our motivations are different when we are pushing for what amounts to the same thing? With enemies like these, who needs friends?

My last reason for being skeptical is personal. I know quite a few white pro-lifers who are not at all anti-white. Also, in a white ethnostate, I really wonder how much my position would differ from theirs. Probably not a lot. I believe that aborting fully-white fetuses should only be legal under extremely rare circumstances, and should always be voluntary. Yes, in the case of incest, or for prescribed eugenic reasons, or if the pregnancy would put the mother’s health in serious jeopardy. Yes, if the mother gets pregnant by a non-white and does not wish to face deportation. No, in the case of rape – with the government being obligated by law to find adoptive parents if the mother does not want to keep the child. And absolutely not, if the mother just feels like having an abortion. This is one thing I find so despicable about the pro-choice movement. The whys and wherefores behind an abortion just don’t matter to these people. Any reason is a good reason to kill a fetus, apparently. I can’t be the only one who finds this to be utterly ghoulish.

And another thing: The pro-choice movement is little more than a distaff grab for power. Women with the will for power and the disinclination to earn it realized long ago that they have a political weapon that men don’t have: a uterus. By turning abortions into an exclusively female civil right, they found they could insert themselves into politics and change its course to the Left. We elect presidents and representatives – and by extension, determine all policy – in large part based on how these politicians profess to feel about abortion. If this is not a naked power grab, then I don’t know what is. Anyone who spouts pious platitudes about a woman’s right to choose is a sap who can’t see the abortion issue for what it is. And if Live Action is anything, it’s not that.

Live Action and other pro-life conservative organizations may not always act explicitly in white interests today, but they will tomorrow. Folks on the Dissident Right should keep that in mind when we draw lines between friends and enemies.

Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.