1,062 words
The Supreme Court upheld Texas’ “Heartbeat” abortion law last week, setting off hysteria on the Left and exhilaration on the mainstream Right. It’s one of the major achievements of the pro-life movement and it could set up the end of Roe v. Wade. This does not end abortion in America, but it does allow individual states to effectively ban it.
As I’ve written numerous times, abortion is not our issue, and the best stance for identitarians is staying out of it. But with that in mind, there is something peculiar about conservative arguments against abortion. Instead of warning about its threat to healthy white babies, most pro-life propaganda focuses on how it’s eugenicist, targeting blacks and kids with Down’s syndrome. The implied reason to oppose it is that it violates sacred liberal dogmas. If it was just about killing healthy white babies, it wouldn’t be so bad, but since it’s racist and Nazi, we must ban it. It’s also the only thing social conservatives care about nowadays.
This view was expressed in the outrage against one commentator who noted that the Heartbeat bills would lead to more babies born with defects. Texas’ Heartbeat bill bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Richard Hanania, a centrist academic who is critical of Black Lives Matter and Critical Race Theory, said it would eliminate abortions for fetuses with Down’s syndrome.
You can’t screen for Down syndrome before about 10 weeks, and something like 80% of Down syndrome fetuses are aborted. If red states ban abortion, we could see a world where they have five times as many children with Down syndrome, and similar numbers for other disabilities.
— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) September 2, 2021
He followed up this fairly reasonable tweet with a more trollish one implying that conservative states would see higher levels of retardation if these laws were implemented. In any case, Hanania brought up a legitimate point about these laws. He wasn’t calling for the murder of the mentally handicapped; just pointing out that these laws would increase their number.
That idea was horrific to conservatives, and Hanania was promptly “ratioed.” His tweet became the basis for numerous conservative media hitpieces and Twitter dunks. Several conservatives displayed pictures of their Down’s syndrome kids to shame the academic. Others called him a Left-wing monster. Radio host Jesse Kelly, who occasionally ventures into forbidden territory on race, said Hanania’s tweet is further proof of why conservatives should embrace secessionism: They just can’t live with eugenics-supporting liberals.
The most notable reaction came from South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem in a FOX News segment. (Yes, FOX News did a whole segment about one guy’s tweet.) Noem emphatically stated that the tweet was “evil” and insisted her state stands against eugenics.
Based on these reactions, you would think that the only reason to oppose abortion was because it harmed Down’s syndrome. Conservatives also announced their fierce hostility towards eugenics and any notion that birth control could be used to improve the population.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
The whole episode reveals how distant nationalists are from the pro-life movement. Some degree of eugenics is accepted by most of the Dissident Right. We want smart, healthy people to have smart, healthy kids. People can have different views on abortion, but most are in favor of basic eugenic ideas. Not so for the pro-life movement. Any notion that we should base policy on having healthier and smarter kids is an abomination. Pro-lifers have convinced themselves that liberals are secret Nazis who agree with Margaret Sanger’s views on population control and blacks. In their view, the libtards support abortion so that there will be fewer black babies to flee the DemoKKKrat plantation.
Some people may genuinely believe this, but it’s mostly being hyped to fit in with the liberal zeitgeist. Conservatives feel that the best way to further their position is to appeal to the reigning ideology and categorize their opponents as heretics of its dogma. Abortion is bad because it’s racist and has eugenic effects. Unintentionally, conservatives demand abortion to better secure dysgenic outcomes.
In an ideal world, we could ban abortion and still ensure that mothers give birth to the healthiest babies, but we’ve essentially banned all practices that even seem to suggest eugenicism. Welfare moms get more money per every child they have, and sterilization is agreed by all mainstream parties to be a great evil. The hard truth is that without broader changes to our society, abortion restrictions would exacerbate white demographic decline and dysgenic births. It’s not the increasingly barren white middle class that’s getting abortions. Abortion restrictions would do little to increase the white birth rate.
But we shouldn’t expect Republicans to lay off abortion, even if it hurts them at the ballot box. It’s the only issue social conservatives have left to fight over. They gave up on gay marriage, and they’re not even sure how to fight back against trans indoctrination. Censoring violent and sexualized media is a forgotten memory. Their sole reason for existing today is abortion. This is their civilizational issue, and they’re gonna make sure the party fights for it. With basically nothing else to offer the Religious Right, Republicans double down on abortion to satisfy this constituency. It doesn’t matter if it will alienate other voters.
Regardless of your views on abortion, it is admirable how the pro-life movement can force a party to focus on an issue that may hurt it in elections. There’s a lesson here. If there were a constituency which demanded that the Republican Party do something to reduce immigration and fight anti-white racism, and insisted that their continued support depended on it, the GOP would listen. Republicans cannot be pro-choice and hope to retain their current base. It would be a major milestone if the Republicans were forced to deal with the immigration boosters and BLM supporters in the same way. To make that happen, you’d have to organize a constituency and make them fervent crusaders for these issues. Tucker Carlson is doing a commendable job of pushing ordinary conservatives in that direction. There’s a decent chance that this constituency will form very soon.
Whatever happens with the Heartbeat bill or Roe v. Wade is not of paramount concern for identitarians. Banning abortion doesn’t advance our core issues, and even hurts them in some ways. There are much more pressing matters for us.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
27 comments
A balanced and insightful look at the pro-life movement from the identitarian perspective. I’m pro-White-life and don’t think a healthy White society would necessarily condone the removal of all Downs or other defects. Such people would hardly be a burden on White Life.
There are about 8 billion people on earth, about 6 billion of which live in what we rancorously call The Third World. Their birth rates per woman average 3 to 8 children. Africa, of course, leads. If only birth control were used, those figures might or might not drop, but with First World consumerism images appearing worldwide now, women may decide on their own to have fewer children. However, here’s the really big problem: the three major religions of the world — Christianity — especially Catholics and Evangelicals — Islam and Hinduism, all ban birth control of any sort, up to and especially including abortion. Most third world women can’t afford it anyway. Islam not only bans birth control, it allows child marriage and polygamy, which makes sure nearly every viable female from age 12 gets impregnated right along. This is the basis, as I see it, of the largest problem the White race faces. We need to find a way to turn this around, without tipping our hand. I’m at a loss for ideas anymore, especially when I see the idiocy of otherwise high-IQ Americans, on this issue!
If this vaccine roll out ends up causing infertility and/or death, as many experts are warning, then this could have a huge impact on population numbers.
However, it appears that European countries seem to be leading the way in the roll-out compared to African countries.
Many average blacks do exist at mental retardation levels of course.
The abortion debate is an eternal proxy war. I suspect many on the right don’t have too much of a stake in the issue. However when the left is distracted by abortion legislation they have less time to fuss about immigration and pronoun use.
I have the same views on abortion that I have on slavery. I oppose both. But….if other people want to have abortions or own slaves, I don’t think it’s my place to force them to conform to my values.
On another note. I hear that more black babies are aborted than are born in New York. Is this a bad thing? Do we need more blacks? As America shifts to a non-white demographic majority abortion could be an important tool against them and to reverse the demographic trend.
As we know, when a woman in Sparta gave birth, she had to take the baby to the Elders. They would examine him to see if he was fit to be a soldier, if not, he would be thrown off a cliff.
It would be very hard to enforce such an eugenic policy today.
Speaking of eugenics, I’m becoming convinced that this COVID forced vaccination stuff is an attempt at depopulation by the globalist elites. However, it is having unexpected results for them: the right, dissidents, patriots, etc., are refusing to vaccinate. While the Woke are happy to take endless jabs if need be. So, I am hoping they will all die or become infertile. Am I being mean?
In reality the babies were just sent off to work the soil. There’s no way the Spartans let potential farm hands be eaten by wolves.
The Roman paterfamilias had an absolute right to bar a child from being reared in his domus. Doubtless some of these unfortunates were adopted by slaves or plebeians, but the fact remains that the custom only ended with the advent of Christianity.
“I’m becoming convinced that this COVID forced vaccination stuff is an attempt at depopulation by the globalist elites. However, it is having unexpected results for them: the right, dissidents, patriots, etc., are refusing to vaccinate. While the Woke are happy to take endless jabs if need be. ”
I don’t think this is an unexpected result for them. That’s why they are rabidly trying to make sure everyone takes the shots.
I also don’t think the first 2 shots are necessarily for depopulation. It would be too obvious if too many people started dropping dead. I believe the goal is to create a system where yearly or twice yearly booster shots are mandatory (The New Normal) and these will be used to progressively depopulate. ‘Quarantine centers’ for people who get positive test results are also part of their plan, in my opinion.
I also wouldn’t put it past the elite to send safe vaccines to certain areas they want the population to increase, and harmful vaccines to areas to depopulate (Red states with lots of Whites).
If the vaccines are for depopulation, then the elites are eliminating themselves, and America will eventually be populated exclusively by ghetto blacks and white anti-government vaccine skeptics.
“If the vaccines are for depopulation, then the elites are eliminating themselves”
I have not seen any evidence of billionaire families taking verifiable vaccines. However, there have been several videos over the years of politicians pretending to get vaccinated. The white house has not mandated vaccines for its employees according to Psaki.
It depends on who you are referring to as elites. I don’t think the people who actually run things are taking the vaccines (neither of us have any evidence for or against this). If you refer to well educated upper class society as the elites, then yes some of them are eliminating themselves.
“America will eventually be populated exclusively by ghetto blacks and white anti-government vaccine skeptics.” – Not all vaccine skeptics are anti-government and for the record, there are many intelligent people choosing not to take them. But yes in the long run what you are suggesting could happen (except I don’t think ghettos will continue to exist if big cities collapse as predicted).
If the vaccines are good then why would the ‘elites’ that hate White people, be desperately trying to get Whites to take the shots? Wouldn’t they want us to not get vaccinated?
Also, like I said in my first comment, I wouldn’t put it past the elite to send safe vaccines to certain areas they want the population to increase (or remain relatively stable), and send harmful vaccines to areas to depopulate (Red states with lots of Whites).
Ultimately it comes back to the million dollar question, why would the people and system that hate us be demanding we take an injection that is good for us?
Would be a hell of a world if they did it accidentally, though. Like through vaccine induced myocardits or something.
Greg’s like “them doing this on purpose would be retarded” and I’m like “dawg, it would be bomb if they did it accidentally.”
There are better ways to “healthier and smarter kids” than destroying the ones who don’t make the grade and there are better ways to a positive, healthy society than the mass abortion industry. What have Down’s syndrome children ever done to you?
You say this isn’t an ‘identitarian’ issue. So then I am not an ‘identitarian’, because whatever that maybe, anyone who is willing to overlook the cruel destruction of the most innocent and helpless forms of human life has lost their their heart and spirit, and whatever mechanical utopia they usher in via the suction pump and medical scissors will just be another modern hellscape.
Where did the author call for the abortion of Down’s syndrome children, or speak disparagingly of them?
Nobody seems to remember Stephen Levitt’s research on comparative crime rates between states with easier or more difficult access to abortion. His conclusion was that if a state eases restrictions on abortion, it can expect a drop in crime 15-25 years later. It’s summarised in his popular book Freakonomics.
That doesn’t mean that abortion is right or wrong. It does mean that the pro-life lobby ought to recognise that it is agitating for even higher rates of crime, and that those crimes will (as ever) be committed by low IQ, low impulse-control individuals from cultures which do not have stable families where fathers are involved in the upbringing of their children.
Conservatism, Inc. decided to resurrect the dreaded abortion issue in order to entice the rubes back to the voting booth. A policy destined to be successful, unfortunately, if the prior comments are anything to go by. Suddenly, concern for a ‘future for White children’ goes out the window in favor of panegyrics to black babies and Down Syndrome babies. Brilliant binary thinking and narrow-minded focus crowding out all common sense. Count me out of this fevered swamp.
All the girls I knew who had abortions in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s were firmly in the low-to-dead-center middle class. Any population statistician making a few assumptions can calculate that the negative demographic effects of Roe v. Wade on the white population since 1973 have been much greater than for that of the black population. This sample size of the anecdotal reference above is large enough to make assumptions with, although the demographics of those women may have changed in the intervening decades.
70% of abortions are sought by blacks, other nonwhites abort, and some white women no doubt abort non-white babies as well. There’s no way to massage those numbers to say that whites are disproportionately aborted. Just the opposite. Without abortion, we would have close to 40 million more blacks plus their offspring, meaning that the black population of 47 million would probably be doubled.
Excellent piece.
Since Conservatives are convinced that babies with Down syndrome must be born, I presume that we are totally not getting that hyper-masculine, primitive frontier world of hard work and struggle which they fantasize about.
We already live in a society that is totally permissive towards abortion, both legally and morally. That society is also the most DYSGENIC one imaginable. So, not really buying the “abortion is eugenic” argument.
America would be even more dysgenic without abortion.
There would be around 100 million blacks without Roe v. Wade.
There would be 5 times the number of Down syndrome retards.
That means that civilization would have collapsed here a decade ago, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I’m not joking: I think one could make a Christian case for abortion apathy based on this data, which I first learned about from reading something in the early 1990s regurgitating Guttmacher Institute abortion stats. I had always assumed (from the late 1970s) abortion must be eugenic, but I had no idea of the racial disparities (to be fair, I think those have increased in the intervening decades, in part due to white prolife activism having sullied the “moral reputation” of abortion among many whites; ethical arguments have greater resonance among whites than nonwhites, esp blacks).
The question for Christians is whether the preservation of civilization itself is a moral value. I think it is (or could be so argued). If so, and if abortion a) lessens/reduces the forces of civilizational enervation or even annihilation, and b) is not coercive but merely an allowed choice, I cannot fathom why any Christian should feel compelled to agitate for its criminalization. To attain Heaven, Christians in my understanding are only required to accept Christ and refrain from evil themselves. There is no requirement that they actively prevent others from being evil (though there are [limited] duties to ameliorate the effects of suffering, which is sometimes the product of evil [though often not], via, say, personal charity).
Christians have no obligation to minimize abortions, murders, robberies, etc, only to avoid participating in such evils themselves. If we seek to minimize murders, muggings, etc, in society, it is not to save our souls, but to protect our bodies. But minimizing abortion, as you aver, does not protect our bodies, but rather, increases the threats to them. Why should a Christian minimize evils which are not his own sins, but whose effects are beneficial to him – and which, indirectly, serve to minimize other evils which could threaten him (or other innocents)?
The prolife movement is liberal, though unusual in being theistic instead of atheistic, as is more normally the case with leftist enterprises.
Sorry, but the abortion issue, debate, whatever you want to call it, or at least some parts of it, ARE relevant to the Dissident Right in general, and to White Nationalists more specifically. Like it or not, we do have a dog in this fight, period. In a healthy, functioning ethnostate, a white woman who becomes pregnant and is carrying an otherwise healthy child (meaning that the child, if carried to term, will be born healthy and with no substantial complications or defects) in her womb, by force of law, has two choices: 1) keep the child and raise it, or 2) give it up for adoption, where it would be cared for in the interim by a competent, well-funded, and adequately-resourced foster care system (ethnonationalism is a holistic worldview, after all). Abortion, simply as an instrument of birth control, cannot and must not be an option for such a woman under any circumstances. If your baby, when delivered, is expected to be born healthy, then termination of the pregnancy must be strictly prohibited according to the law of the law.
It may be “your body,” as the saying goes, but for the greater eugenic (and, for many, religious) collective good, it is NOT your choice. That choice must be taken away from you.
And what of white women who choose to go ahead and terminate their pregnancies in the face of such a legal prohibition? What of the physicians that would agree to illegally perform such procedures? Well, it’s very simple really. This is where the concept of mandatory sentencing comes into play in arguably the most effective and appropriate situation in which it should be implemented: a woman who has an otherwise healthy pregnancy terminated and who is rightfully arrested, charged with, tried for, and convicted of this most heinous of crimes MUST receive a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. No exceptions. Even the judge should have little discretion in sentencing after conviction. Caning, Singapore-style, MIGHT be considered as an option depending on the circumstances, and even that would require tight examination of the situation.
As for the physician who performed the abortion, the death penalty (by either hanging, firing squad, or guillotine) must be mandatory without the option of a prison sentence.
Infanticide cannot and must not be tolerated in society, particularly among a people whose demographics are already placing them in mortal peril of losing their nation(s).
Patriarchy in the political, legal, social, religious, and economic spheres (and, frankly, any other sphere of society that matters) needs to make a major comeback in the form of a social and political revolution; and when it does, it needs to be hauling a major can of laws and other legal “whoop-ass lawfare” with it, to be dispensed liberally to feminists in general and frothing-at-the-mouth abortion activists in particular.
There is a materialist concern and a spiritual concern. The material concern is that both the State and the Families involved have to deal with the problem of a retarded child and by experience IT IS A PROBLEM. The Conservative angle is not just spiritual. It’s the repeated abortions and the meat factory like presence along with the tax payer paying and those who cross the borders to have this procedure. It may be a woman’s right but it is also a mans right , given its his sperm, and it is a taxpayers right to wedge in on this.
As far as spiritual I have studied the Yoga and Buddhist conception of embryonic gestation and follow the line of thinking that their is a intelligence guiding the process . The moral issue is : is post-humanism the future? And that abortion on demand plays into that.
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.