Counter-Currents
Rep. Steve King
1,592 words
Republican Iowa Rep. Steve King is in serious trouble again. This time, it has nothing to do with race or immigration; it’s over sex and abortion. Like most of King’s comments, it revealed an uncomfortable truth, but it upheld a foolish position that the Right should avoid.
You may recall King as the Congressman who often makes BASED Boomer comments. He’s a staunch immigration opponent who regularly defends Western civilization and (unintentionally) expresses identitarian views. He has said that Western civilization can’t save itself by using other people’s babies; he has been consistent in noting the demographic change in Western countries; and he is one of the few Republicans who’s happy to meet with European nationalists.
Republicans ostracized King earlier this year after he said this to The New York Times: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?” That one statement resulted in the Iowa congressman losing his committee assignments, disavowals from GOP leaders, and an official congressional condemnation of himself.
King has not apologized nor changed his views since his ostracism. Last week, he drew forth the indignation of the media and his party’s leaders once more. Speaking at an event in his home state, he explained why he opposes rape and incest exceptions to abortion bans:
What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that? . . . Considering all the wars and all the rape and pillage that has taken place . . . I know I can’t certify that I was not a part of a product of that.
Those comments probably should not have been made by a politician, but they are true. However, the feelings of journalists and political leaders mattered more than the facts. Nearly every Democratic presidential candidate, and even high-ranking Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney, the daughter of Dick, called for his resignation. “This is incredibly cruel & disrespectful to survivors. Steve King & his values, his rhetoric, & his disdain for decency is a far cry from the Iowa I know,” Democratic Iowa Rep. Abby Finkenauer said in a typical reaction. “He doesn’t represent who we are & he continues to be an embarrassment to our state & federal delegation.”
This is incredibly cruel & disrespectful to survivors. Steve King & his values, his rhetoric, & his disdain for decency is a far cry from the Iowa I know. He doesn’t represent who we are & he continues to be an embarrassment to our state & federal delegation #ia01 https://t.co/nQ6L7ZKRRG
— Abby Finkenauer (@Abby4Iowa) August 14, 2019
Another typical reaction came from Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar: “Gross! This would explain why these weirdos are fixed on smearing me with claims of incest. Projecting their filth, unreal.” Strong evidence alleges that Omar married her brother to commit immigration and tax fraud, but her arrogance leads her to believe that white conservatives are the real incestuous folks.
Gross! This would explain why these weirdos are fixed on smearing me with claims of incest. Projecting their filth, unreal. https://t.co/PTJpBYyUNV
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) August 14, 2019
Once again, King refused to apologize and demanded an apology from the media for twisting his words. There is no chance he will receive an apology.
As stated above, King’s comments were true – even if they were bizarrely stated. It’s a near certainty that all people on Earth have ancestors who were the products of incest and rape. It’s an ugly fact, but it’s true. In earlier times, your ancestors probably procreated with a relative, and sexual violence often followed war and conquest. Vikings imparted their DNA throughout Europe through rape and abductions. The rape of the Sabine women was an integral part of Rome’s founding, and Romans were proud to say they were their descendants. The ancients, however, did not celebrate rape. Those same Romans also saw the rape of Lucretia as a grave injustice that warranted a revolution – but they accepted it as a dirty fact of life.
Feminists don’t even believe in feminist courting themselves. Over half of American women admit to having rape fantasies. Most pulp romance novels play to this; think of the 50 Shades series, which, while not exactly a rape fantasy, features a dominant man overpowering a submissive woman. It’s a fascination that even Bernie Sanders noticed. “A woman enjoys intercourse with her man – as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously,” Sanders wrote in 1972. There may be some evolutionary explanation for this fantasy; perhaps it is a biological reminder of primitive mating. Either way, its prevalence does not lead to the conclusion that the ancients only practiced affirmative consent.
Rape and incest are rightfully seen as deviant behavior today. That’s why society is appalled to hear a major figure claim that we all have rape and incest in our family trees. But it is undeniably true.
Critics claimed King’s statement supported rape and incest, despite the fact that this was obviously not his intent. Shrill feminists and Leftists need to believe King argued for rape and incest to reinforce their own biases. They believe the patriarchy has imposed a rape culture on America, and that old white men believe it’s okay to sexually assault women. America is a very dangerous country for women, as “respected” NGOs tell us. It’s easy to support this delusion if you think Republican lawmakers openly support rape.
The incest claim helps further anti-white stereotypes as well. Non-whites love to think that whites – particularly rural whites – are banging their sisters and cousins. “King admitted that whites are the real incesters!” However, non-whites are far more likely to engage in incest than whites. Consanguinity marriages are rare in the West, but very common throughout Africa and Asia. Calling whites “cousin fuckers” is pure projection.
Regardless of the truth of King’s comments, he shouldn’t have said it. First, it’s a strange hill for a politician to die on. Second, it’s for a cause that will alienate many middle Americans.
King is one of the most stalwart advocates of sensible immigration policies. He never capitulates on defending America’s interests against foreign intrusion. He’s also a strong critic of multiculturalism and affirmative action. He is wont to have frequent heated Boomer moments, but he is still solid on those core issues.
However, he pairs this solid ideology with abortion extremism. Most white Americans want some restrictions on abortion, but they don’t want it banned outright. The majority of them want abortion to be available in the cases of rape or incest. Alabama passed an abortion ban in May that satisfied King’s requirements, as it only allowed abortion if the mother’s life was at risk. Otherwise, all abortions would be illegal. Polls show only fourteen percent of Americans support such a law. These laws and comments alienate large swaths of the electorate – all for a lobby that doesn’t defend its allies.
No pro-lifer came to King’s defense, even though his comments were in defense of their cause. One conservative writer said that King’s “rhetorical stupidity hurts the pro-life movement.” That writer believed King defended the acts of rape and incest, and wished all pro-lifers would stick to respectable talking points.
The conservative movement also barely defended Alabama for passing a law that Conservative Inc. has championed for years. Many commentators wrung their hands that the prohibition set back the pro-life movement. It did alienate voters, but it did so following the logic of the pro-life movement’s proposals. The problem doesn’t lie with Alabama; it lies with the conservatives who insist on a blanket opposition to all abortions.
This author previously wrote on how the pro-life stance has become a litmus test for Republicans. No Republican can run for President if he or she supports abortion. Donald Trump proved this when he reversed his long support for abortion when he ran in 2016. Pro-lifers attacked Trump when he followed the logic of their arguments and said women who have abortions should be punished. “No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about,” said March for Life President Jeanne Mancini.
Once again, pro-lifers showed they care more about their strange sense of respectability than defending their own. Abortion is murder, yet the women who requests the act are not held responsible. This is feminism, but even dumber.
The proper abortion stance for identitarians is not to have one. It’s not our fight.
Some on our side urge us to follow Steve King’s example and embrace the most radical pro-life position. Not only does this repulse white Americans who may sympathize with our cause, it doesn’t gain us allies. Just look at how King is isolated from the rest of his party, despite his long record of fighting against abortion. Just think of how the March for Life quickly disavowed the Covington Catholic kids over false accusations of racism. The pro-life movement is just as horrified by white identity as the rest of Conservative Inc.
There may come a time when pro-lifers overcome their horror and become our allies. But that time is not today. There is no reason for identitarians to be extremists on every issue. We want to present ourselves as reasonable, normal people. Our core position – that whites should act collectively to preserve ourselves – already puts us outside of the mainstream. We shouldn’t further our isolation by taking positions that have nothing to do with our cause.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
20 comments
The most logical and least damaging stance on abortion that it is a tool of governance at the state, local and familial level, to be exercised sparingly and to eugenic, rather than moralistic ends.
It’s important we don’t lose our heads here.
I agree with this article. The dissent right should distance itself from every position that is not essential to white identity politics. Those include standard religious right views such as prayer in schools and conservative views on various contemporary moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia. The most cogent positions on the latter, it seems to me, are for liberal positions. If you don’t believe me, see Michael Tooley, “Abortion and Infanticide” and James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” Tooley draws the critics distinction between the concepts of a human being and a person–a point that may be useful to us. Both these authors are (or were, in the case of the late James Rachels) eminent professional philosophers. All educated people should know these two philosophers’ arguments. Issues such as abortion and euthanasia are ones we can have healthy debates over once our views have achieved hegemony.
I typed “critical distinction” but the spellchecker changed what I wrote. Poor lighting and small type prevented me from seeing the error!
Thoughtful observation.
Arguing about anything other than civilisational survival now is comparable to squabbling about the architecture of a sand castle whilst the ocean comes roaring in. Let’s build the dike, first!
King’s comment suggests to me a type of argument one hears from pro-lifers: imagine all the wonderful contributions to our culture that could have been made had they not been aborted! Since that’s purely hypothetical, they’ll switch to “Imagine if Beethoven had been aborted! Or Jonas Salk!”
I think this is the kind of argument F. Schuon liked to call “pro domo,” it only convinces those who are already faithful believers.
Buckley, for instance, being Catholic and thus committed to opposing birth control as well as abortion, would dismiss worries about over-population by saying, “the more children that are born, the more likely one of them will solve the problem.” Sort of like the Invisible Hand.
It sounds like King stumbled into an especially unwise extension of the argument: Hey, if you really think about it, we’re all products of rape and incest, so how can you deplore them?
Correct. Imagine if all the unwanted kids born after Roe vs Wade HAD been born. Think of the monsters that’d be terrorising us today. Think of the innocent, valuable lives they would have ended or ruined.
The Invisible Hand in all its forms is a sick joke.
.
I get the point the author is making, but I think it’s the wrong way of looking at it. We can’t afford to be this nuanced.
I feel we should simply applaud people who are outspoken on an issue. It’s really the outspokenness that is offensive and dangerous to our enemies, who seek to maintain a suffocating atmosphere where nobody can say what they really think, and everyone has to be seen to repeat the usual enormous lies.
We need to encourage a supportive atmosphere where politicians can be outspoken generally and are rewarded for it, whether or not the issue is divisive or a key issue for us.
The topic here is abortion, but tomorrow it could be race, diversity and immigration. And that’s what our enemies worry about.
Hampton is absolutely right, and to any edgy TradLords who might be reading this, know that it was the stifling culture of conservatives in the 50s that gave way to the Cultural Revolutions of the 60s. The White Race likes its freedom, and although some personal practices would be banned in a White Ethnostate for obvious reasons – interracial marriage being the prime example – its not like we’re going to have some totalitarian state that regulates all behavior deemed morally unacceptable.
I would support any intrusion of my privacy that keeps me physically safe from terrorists and criminals, and I’d also support state intervention for the purposes of furthering a Eugenics program. But when it comes to things like abortion and gay marriage, I don’t see a compelling reason to be a hardliner against either in a world where Whites support both
BTW, this same logic applies to the Movement in re: its hatred of Burger Nationalism. On that issue, I’m 100% with the NormieCons. Even from a Eugenics perspective, there still shouldn’t be any restrictions on what Whites can and cannot eat for this reason: The healthy will freely choose to eat healthy food, and the unhealthy will freely choose to destroy themselves by eating unhealthy foods. The “Health Food” craze that I see latent in this Movement is as cringe as the Pro Life position, and its one the Movement should abandon for the sake of being moderate and normal.
” its not like we’re going to have some totalitarian state that regulates all behavior deemed morally unacceptable.”
Lol, that’s what you think, cuckboi.
“We want to present ourselves as reasonable, normal people.”
And how has that worked so far?
The move to the left is a simple slide, the move to the right is always forced.
While it is true that there are _some_ people out there that can be convinced, they are a minority so small as to be hardly measurable. The great masses will only swing right when forced by circumstances. Usually of the “no food” category.
If somebody speaks truth, then he deserves supported. No matter what the truth is.
Rejecting a truth speaker because the truth is painful to somebody is about the worst kind of treason there is imo. It is a treason of truth and proves you cannot be trusted.
You could say nothing, that imo would be acceptable, but trying to convince others to stay neutral is already too much for me.
“No pro-lifer came to King’s defense, even though his comments were in defense of their cause.”
When wimps walk away from a man who has told the truth, the fault is with them, not him.
Rhodok is right.
This is a really good, seminal point. You need to reduce the frame work down to 4-5 points.
1. Whites have collective interests.
2. Whites have to act on those collective interests.
3. Whites advocates should avoid speaking outside those interest.
4. Whites should avoid act outside of those interests.
Many of the problems would vanish.
King’s problem stems from the same issue that sank that guy from Missouri who said that trauma from rape shuts down the viability of the pregnancy.
He’s signed on to the idea that abortion is wrong. I’m okay with black foetus abortion. If a woman has been raped I don’t have a problem with her aborting the foetus. Especially if it’s a black. I’d be fine with the abortion of downs syndrome children too. I’d force sterilize women and men with 90-below IQs. I don’t know if I’d publically advocate for these things in a hearing.
But he’s signed on the absolute position of abortion being wrong. It leads to a political own goal.
Don’t know if the other commenters said this, but we as racists need to support abortion in these special cases because they are almost always hugely dysgenic. By definition in incest, but typically in rape bc the assailant is nonwhite or rapists are low iq. Rapist conquerors in the ancient world were by contrast high iq. Rape of the outgroup was ok, but your own people no. Romans could use rape as a punishment of barbarians, cf. Boadecia and her daughters.
By that I do not advocate rape at all, but only pointing out how ancient peoples appear to have perceived it.
The Western world in particular has an almost paramount level of disgust for rape and incest, nowhere more so than the US. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. We don’t need to borrow more trouble running empirical or philosophical interference for a single-issue constituency with inextricable ties to religious groups that put kumbaya universalism over the interests of Whites. I’m a birth-control/sterilization eugenicist strongly opposed to abortion except for rape, incest, severe genetic disorders or life-threat to the mother. That said, I will stand by anyone who puts the interests of White people ahead of whatever their views on abortion might be. We can sort this out in our future ethnostates after we’ve beaten the armies we’re already facing.
Rape is horrible, it is a huge incentive to be careful. Banning aborting would double up on that. I believe it would prevent more dysgenic babies than it would produce.
Also, keep in mind that many accusations of rape are in fact not rape at all. Just a way for a woman to get what she wants.
Banning all kinds of abortions (and contraceptives, and the ill named ‘social’ payments) will usher in a more K-selected eugenic society.
In their book “Freakonomics” Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner make a convincing case that the crime rate in New York City dropped quite a bit in the 1990s not so much because of the new policing policies of Rudy Giuliani but rather because of all the black babies that were no longer being born because of Roe V. Wade. If this argument is good, I think White Nationalists should support abortion. I used to be pro-life because I was Buckleyite Conservative and because I hated feminists and feminists love abortion. Once I became a WN, I became a supporter of abortion for all non-whites.
I believe Steve Sailer, who is super-smart, did once try and refute Levitt and Dubner but I haven’t been able to find the article.
Still boggled at what would lead a politician to try and take the “hard realist genetic” approach to rape & incest abortion. The levels of social dysfunction and sheer idiocy in the GOP are enough to justify any conspiracy theory. Pat Caddell’s ghost is cackling “told ya so!”
Kings’s historically nuanced observations while containing some truth don’t have much relevance to modern America. The important question to consider is who will look after these babies born as a result of genuine cases of rape or incest. The mothers certainly won’t, and can we blame them.
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment