Abortion & White Nationalism, AgainGreg Johnson
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” — Napoleon
Word has it that Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion throughout America, may soon be overturned. If it is overturned, this will be the most significant victory by American conservatives in my lifetime. Sadly, it is bad for white people.
If the Supreme Court throws out Roe v. Wade, this ruling means only that the US Constitution says nothing about the legality of abortion, thus the question must be determined by state legislatures, not the high court. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, however, many states will dramatically limit abortion.
I am of two minds about abortion.
On the one hand:
- I believe that human life begins at conception, and human beings have a right to life. Having a right to life means simply: Human life is highly valuable, thus there is a prima facie case for preserving it, and you need a really good argument not to do so. Human rights mean that we need to arrange our affairs so that we respect the lives of others, even if it would be more convenient or profitable to rob, rape, or kill them. Fortunately, the world is big and rich enough to ensure every human being has a place.
- There are, of course, circumstances in which people lose their right to life. If a man tries to kill you, you certainly have the right to use lethal force to protect yourself. People who commit heinous crimes arguably lose their right to life. Moreover, we should have no compunctions about killing enemy soldiers and spies if they are fighting against us.
- But you have to do something to lose your right to life. The only thing an unborn child can do to merit lethal force is to pose a medical threat to its mother’s life, and that doesn’t include merely upsetting her. But such circumstances only account for a tiny percentage of abortions.
- Arguments for abortion on demand are a mountain of sophistries, dishonest euphemisms, and emotional manipulation.
- Roe v. Wade is a terrible legal decision. Allowing it to stand for nearly half a century is a mockery of American justice.
- Abortion advocates are among the most disgusting people in the world.
- The people who choose to abort their children are generally trash and scum. At the very least, they are weak and selfish.
- A decent society would ban abortion “on demand.” Killing human beings is serious. Abortion should be treated as a form of execution. Thus if a woman wishes to seek an abortion, there should be a legal proceeding to determine whether the unborn child has, in effect, committed a capital crime. Both the child and its father have rights and should have representation in the proceeding. Under no circumstances, however, would a decent society treat abortion as merely a personal choice, with no more moral importance than cutting one’s hair or trimming one’s nails.
- The pro-life movement should be a model for White Nationalism. Abortion, like white genocide, is a slow, cold genocide taking place in what seems like a normal society. Over 60 million abortions have taken place in America since Roe v. Wade. If a crime of such magnitude can be hidden from most people, then so can the even greater crime of white genocide. The pro-life movement’s most important achievement has been simply awakening millions to the magnitude of the horrors happening invisibly all around us. At the core of the pro-life movement is an enormous moral outrage and urgency. And yet the pro-life movement has been disciplined enough to rein in people who argue that resisting genocide requires acts of terrorism. If your goal is to shine a light on an invisible genocide against the innocent, then terrorist attacks that also inevitably harm the innocent are not the way to do it. They obscure rather than reveal the true crime of abortion, and they render both sides morally equal in the eyes of the public. White Nationalists need to take this lesson to heart as well.
On the other hand:
- We don’t live in a decent society. We live in a profoundly sick society, and we face a far bigger problem than abortion, namely white genocide. Because of low white fertility, non-white immigration, and policies that discriminate against whites in favor of non-whites, whites in America are in danger of biological extinction. Because all of these trends are predictable outcomes of social policies and could be remedied by better policies, white extinction is actually white genocide.
- Legalizing abortion nationwide through Roe v. Wade is one of the few liberal triumphs that actually works in the demographic favor of whites. Currently, about 70% of women who seek abortions in America are non-white. Of the white women who seek abortions, surely some percentage is aborting non-white babies as well. That means that fewer than 30% of abortions are of white babies. Non-whites are massively overrepresented among abortion seekers, while whites are massively underrepresented. If Roe v. Wade had never been passed, there would be more whites and non-whites in America, but the non-white percentage of the overall population would be much larger, which means that the cultural and demographic decline of white America would be far more advanced, perhaps too far advanced to be reversed. Overturning Roe v. Wade while open borders, low white fertility, and anti-white discrimination remain will only hasten white decline and make it harder to regain control of our own destiny.
- One argument against abortion is that the people who choose to abort their children are usually trash and scum. But that’s also an argument for it. Since trashy and scummy traits are heritable, giving such people access to abortion decreases their representation in future generations. Roe v. Wade is thus the only liberal triumph that has eugenic rather than dysgenic effects.
What, then, should be the White Nationalist position on abortion?
In a White Nationalist society, I would ban most abortions. However, this is not a White Nationalist society, and under present circumstances, we have bigger problems to deal with. Thus, if you think that white genocide is our greatest problem and White Nationalism is the solution, White Nationalists should not spend any of our scarce social, political, and financial capital opposing abortion. To do so is utterly irresponsible. It will simply hasten our own doom.
But if abortion works in our favor, should White Nationalists actively promote it?
It goes back to the question of human rights. I believe that White Nationalism is completely consistent with respecting the rights of other human beings. We can’t just murder millions of people because it is convenient. That may be fine for liberals, but the New Right occupies higher moral ground.
By the same token, however, when we see our enemies (Leftists and non-whites) eagerly murdering millions of their own offspring, are we morally obligated to stop them, especially when stopping them hastens white genocide?
Saint Augustine famously prayed to God to help him be chaste and continent, “but not yet.” That’s the proper White Nationalist position on abortion. We should end it. But not yet.
* * *
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:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Plato’s Phaedo, Part II
Plato’s Phaedo, Part I
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 535 Ask Me Anything
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
Notes on Strauss & Husserl
The Honorable Cause: A Review
Remembering Oswald Spengler (May 29, 1880-May 8, 1936)
That’s basically my position on abortion too, minus the extreme rhetoric. It’s basically a utilitarian stance. Morally, I think abortion is probably wrong, and I would not want it for my family or whites more generally. But I believe strongly in the negative eugenic effects of shrinking the black underclass and the Freakonomics argument that roe vs wade was the reason for the abrupt decline in crime in the mid nineties. It keeps us all safer. Hence I’m pro abortion. Also, I think desperate people will seek back alley abortions if abortion were illegal with the attendant evils, so it’s best to leave it legal. I don’t feel strongly that early abortions are definitely “murder”, so I’m not hysterical on the issue. Many feminists seem to imbue the topic with a spiritual fervor, which I’m more or less deaf to.
My cousin once worked at an abortion clinic, and she said the same blacks would show up every few weeks or so for another abortion! Many of them! It’s a real effect. Think how many more there would be otherwise.
I was curious, I wonder if Dr. Johnson would be willing to disclose his SAT score?
Thought experiment: vigorous physical activity, such as for example playing basketball, can cause women to lose early pregnancies. Are all the women in history guilty of manslaughter then? Of course not. So early abortion should not be considered as murder. In the other hand, if a woman great with child took a baseball bat to her abdomen with the intent to kill the baby inside, it’s pretty clear something wrong is happening. Nature sort of tells you what is right and wrong. The entire issue devolves to the question of papal infallibility because the popes took the position that life begins when sperm meets egg.
If a woman knows she is pregnant and engages in activities likely to cause a miscarriage, that sounds like negligent homicide to me at the very least.
I don’t remember my SAT score. My IQ was tested at 136 once. Maybe if it were 137, I would have remembered that score.
Maybe you were not a nerd, so you were not worried about your Sat score. I got a tattoo of mine.
I almost got a tattoo of my own SAT score.
I did pretty well: 1488.
Doesn’t surprise me
Thanks ,James! My first early morning chuckle.
Thanks, Heimdall. That’s from my Dad-Jokes collection. 🙂
What kind of an IQ test was it, if you recall? I took a bunch of formal IQ tests at different points in my life, and got a fairly broad range of scores (all of these but one were pre-college, so I can’t myself recall what they were). My lowest was 138 (but that was an informal test I took as an adult merely on a website someone fwded me in an email). A couple of others were in the 140s; my best score was as a small boy in the 1960s, when I got 152 on a mandatory test at my private grade school.
I was not a National Merit Scholar, but I made it to the last round (whatever that was called), and received some kind of honorable mention. I was easily admitted to UCBerkeley on SAT scores alone (yes, in the late 70s – and I think until the late 80s, though I’m not certain – people could gain automatic admission to UC if one’s SATs were above some threshold, which wasn’t all that high, even against today’s debased scores; logician Michael Levin, author of the excellent Why Race Matters, as well as the also useful Freedom and Feminism, told me at a late 90s John Randolph Club conference that the SAT had been “renormed” in the early 90s, with the result that median test scores shot way up immediately thereafter).
I didn’t go to UC but to one of the ‘lesser’ Ivies. If I’d had any special talents, or anything at all on my college applications beyond grades/SATs, or a ‘legacy’ or wealthy father, I’m sure I would have gone to Stanford or Yale or Princeton. [Harvard in the late 70s was already known for privileging “special people”, those with solid academic credentials but also some rare or unique element in their backgrounds. A plain white male with no extraordinary talents or skills, only moderately athletic, and from an intact, middle/upper-middle class Christian Republican home, didn’t stand a chance.] Today, of course, I’d probably be relegated to attending a very third rate college; even at my alma mater, the number of places set aside for merely smart white men, ones who aren’t even foreign ‘diversity’, has become extremely restricted. One of the great unspoken scandals of our time.
Later, my LSAT was nothing special, but my GRE scores were just sufficient to qualify me for the Triple-9 IQ Society.
I’m sure, Dr. Johnson, your real IQ, under formal conditions, would test higher than 136. I know I’m above 140 (or was, depending on the current state of my possible age-related decline), and I highly doubt I’m smarter than you are (just more verbose, I suppose).
Are you in the triple nine society lord Shang?
The renorming of the test was in 1995 and it made the SAT less psychometric—the various high iq societies no longer accept it! The renorming(of course) was to lessen the gap between whites and blacks. Formerly there were very few blacks in the 1400+ region, essentially none, and the renorming essentially did away with that category. According to the book, Affirmative action Hoax, which I recommend, if you look where they renormed the math, it helps the maximum number of blacks relative to whites! The race war against whites is very subtle and deep.
I doubt my own measured IQ would be that high, actually. My digit span is really weak, almost below average. I simply have the personality where I read and think a lot. 137 is about where I would but dr. Johnson, hearing him speak and all. Most of the people who comment on this site would be around there, actually. Just to come to dissident politics is a huge filter over the average population.
Thank you for that interesting information.
I am not a member of any IQ association. Indeed, I’d never heard of the Triple 9 Society until a few years ago, when a friend got interested in this stuff and sent me a link. I dredged up my GRE scores from the 80s, and then used T9’s online conversion chart to discover that I do qualify (assuming no “expiration” date past which old scores are no longer admissible), albeit barely.
I have a theory wrt IQ tests. I think they better correlate with the “demonstrated intelligence” (ie, what a group of persons widely recognized to be smart – eg, the writers at CC – would collectively agree constitutes “intelligence”) of the dumb (left) half of the cognitive Bell Curve than with the smart side. All people who perform very poorly on IQ tests are almost certainly stupid as we understand the term (assuming no exogenous barriers, like linguistic unfamiliarity, or possibly other things less extreme). But I’m not convinced that all who do well on IQ tests are necessarily that smart, or, at the least, that equal IQ scores indicate truly equal intelligence, as recognized by other smart people. I’ve seen anomalies again and again. Guys with substantially lower SATs consistently academically beating guys with much higher SATs. I had a pal in college like this. This guy destroyed me in advanced calculus (ie, studied much less but got much better exam scores). I was shocked to discover later that I’d beaten him by something like 100pts on the SAT math. How is that possible? I’m no psychometrician, but it seems like these kinds of anomalies just sort of get glossed over by the IQ-fetishists.
I claim no formal expertise in Christian theology, but I did get the Christian basics pounded into me over many years of Christian schooling (not to mention family church attendance). There is no moral obligation to coercively stop other people’s sinning. The Christian churches have, with a few weird, theologically suspect, ‘progressive’ exceptions, mostly all arrived at the proposition that abortion, absent very extreme and rare circumstances, is evil. You should not perform, pay for, or consent to an abortion. I also do not think you are allowed to vote for it, or legislate it (if a politician).
But that does not mean that you have some kind of obligation to stamp it out. I have maintained for many decades that abortion is the sole liberal policy that actually helps the Occidental cause, especially in America. (Everything other liberal policy serves to weaken white societies and harm their survival prospects.) Thus, our position, even for Christian white preservationists, should be abortion-apathy. If our racial competition wishes to (slightly) depopulate itself, why should we prevent them?
Indeed, I assert the preserving our race is itself a moral good, and of a very high order. What really is ethically more important: preventing voluntary, disproportionately nonwhite (and some white) underclass abortions, or halting white genocide and ensuring the biocivilizational perpetuity of the West? I mean, even from an authentically Christian perspective?
I’m not sure if I believe human life begins at conception. When I see pictures of human fetuses, I don’t usually think “that’s a human baby”. Depending on what stage of development it’s in, I have difficulty knowing what species it belongs too or if it’s even from this planet. I mostly think of a fetus as a *potential* human being.
I understand why people choose to draw the line at conception though. I would rather live in a society where people are over-protective of tiny embryos than to allow people to engage in outright infanticide.
At conception, a distinct organism comes into existence, that is not part of its mother or its father (distinct genetic identity).
If a fetus is a potential human being, what species does it belong to before it is human? It has to be some sort of life. If it is potentially human, it must be actually something.
It may have the same genetic material as a fully developed human but so does a fertilized egg before it has a chance to implant itself in the uterus. Fertilized embryos that are created outside the womb with IVF also have the genetic makeup of humans but I have a hard time convincing myself that a human embryo in a petri dish is the same thing as a newborn baby in a mother’s arms. If a laboratory tech mishandles a petri dish full of human embryos, should he be charged with child abuse?
I think an analogy that could be used is a pizza pie before it’s been baked. It has all the ingredients of a pizza but if you tried to sell it to a customer at a pizzeria they would look at you like you’re crazy before demanding a “real” pizza. A human embryo has all the ingredients (DNA) of a fully baked human but most people I know don’t consider it a real human.
My life began at conception. Unless I’m badly misinformed, so did yours.
Very interesting. That was the old Garrett Hardin hypothetical: If a man deliberately smashes a large glass jar containing 50,000 embryos, is he the greatest serial killer? It does seem vaguely preposterous.
I don’t believe in a soul, so I think the capacity for some kind of conscious experience counts for something when it comes to deciding the morality of abortion, not just whether the fetus is a “distinct organism” (and synapses don’t develop in the neurons of the cortex until around the end of the second trimester). Suppose that medical science was advanced enough to keep the rest of someone’s body alive after they had blown their brains out with a shotgun–would it be murder to kill a brainless but still living human body in that case? You could still call it a distinct living organism, though I don’t think biologists have any really precise definition of “organism” that would settle the question of how much of the body can be destroyed and still have the rest qualify as an organism (if someone kept a few of my skin cells alive in a petri dish after the rest of me died, no one would call that a multicellular organism, but where’s the cutoff?) And I don’t think organism is a “natural kind” in the philosophical sense (the kind of thing followers of Aristotle believe in, with this kind of Aristotelian view baked into a lot of Catholic theology), so there doesn’t have to be an objective answer to this question independent of whatever definition biologists choose for convenience.
There’s nothing abnormal about a baby in the earliest stages of development not being able to think. Is it fair to say that human beings walk, so a baby is not fully human when it is still crawling? There’s something very arbitrary about taking what is normal for one stage of human development and treating it as the sine qua non of humanity, such that what is perfectly normal at other developmental stages is somehow seen as defective.
If something just like that fetus was found on another planet, would you say that alien life had been discovered?
FWIW, Bro. Stair, the (late) evangelical cult leader I’ve written about here, has an interesting take on abortion. Unless God brings two people together in marriage, the child is the product of iniquity and essentially has no soul anyway. He mocks those who think there are millions of fetus souls piling up in Heaven (a typically Catholic idea; Augustine, btw, taught that Hell was paved with the souls of unbaptized infants), and even if they had souls, the Calvinist God would eventually damn them anyway, so aborting them is the kind thing to do. (Evola, too, said that it was wrong to bring children into the Modern World, since they would likely join it rather than become Tradtionalists).
Stair also points to Genesis; God forms Adam from the earth, but then breathes into him, “an he had a living soul.” So until the child takes its first breath, it has no soul; or rather, the breath is the entry of the soul. If I am not mistaken, this was St. Thomas’s idea as well; the “eternal unchanging Catholic doctrine” on life beginning at conception, as on so much else, is really quite modern (the Church in its wisdom decides when it will invoke modern science — “ultrasonic proves it’s alive!” or not — “contraception is against nature!”).
This article settles the debate from our perspective once and for all. Even my Christian friend, a diehard pro-lifer, greeted it favorably. Uncompromising with class. Great work, boss.
Very well done, sir. As usual.
“We should end it. But not yet” sums it up perfectly.
GJ sums up my take on the issue.
Given the way in which “human rights” discourse functions in our current world, it is a concept I avoid. Like “racism”, it seems only to have any real power when it attacks White civilization. Everything from abortion to immigration to medical care to housing to dreadlocks to being called by your pronoun of choice seems to find a home under this noble sounding umbrella.
One thing that would make me friendlier to it is if it were possible to clarify what is not a “human right.”
True. The ideology of universal, “natural” human rights is a harmful one, and when it is accepted on our side, it weakens us. It’s against the true laws of Nature, which should guide us. Any human rights, citizen rights originate in fact from human-made laws. Some of those are good for the White race, some aren’t. We should judge everything based on whether it serves the good of our race, or not. Some abortions are good for us (mixed babies, non-White babies in White countries, proven dysgenic cases like Down syndrome), while the abortions of healthy White babies are obviously bad for us.
Great article. Well reasoned, measured discussion of a difficult issue.
Just think of all the Trayvon Martins, Michael Browns, and Armaud Arberies we could’ve gotten, man. C’mon, man!
This is a reasonable argument for strategic indifference but allow me to make a pro-life argument that might cause you pause to reconsider.
I believe that up to this point, a sort of “Pandora’s Box” mindset has settled into our obsessively progressive culture so that even normal decent people (the kind who would never get an abortion or condone it in their own family but who otherwise rationalize the libertarian argument for it) these people believe that once a shift in norms has occurred, there’s no going back or overturning it. Look how quickly both parties embraced gay marriage after only a decade earlier enshrining “protection of marriage acts” and so forth. For so-called conservatives, once they’ve lost they simply write it off and move on.
I know the SCOTUS overturning a previous ruling isn’t without precedent, but clearly it hasn’t happened since prior to WW2. People simply have not considered this a realistic possibility, yet here we are.
My point is, instead of worrying that this is going to hasten the demographic singularity, perhaps we should consider this the turning point where normal people consider the “possibility” of various things they feel deep uneasiness about, but have yet accepted, returning to normalcy. Perhaps this is when normal people consider the idea that they don’t have to have a “live and let live” attitude about the rules of society to be “good people”. Maybe they’ll consider the possibility that interracial marriage hasn’t been good for any of the races. Maybe they’ll explore the idea that multicultural societies don’t have to be inevitable. Maybe the idea of balkanization and secession will not be so taboo anymore.
I welcome this change in the culture war not because of any long term consequence that may or may not actually happen, but because of the firm belief that I hold that busted dams start off with a crack that leads to a fissure that then leads to the water gushing back to its normal flow.
Overturning Roe DOES hasten the demographic singularity.
Overturning Roe MAY be the first domino in a series of good things.
Honestly, I would have preferred the first domino to be a border wall, ending birthright citizenship, ending affirmative action, or repealing the Civil Rights Act.
Abortion is what drove me away from the Democrats about thirty years ago, and here I am now, about as far right as is legal. Abortion is repugnant to any human being.
A sobering analysis. I think it’s easy to get caught up in owning the libs but there is a silver lining for them with this and that is the potential for an increase in minority demographics. I’m surprised some 4chan troll hasn’t done a fake tweet from some Jewish liberal like Greenblatt that most abortions are from minorities so this could mean an increase in diversity. Of course people in red states could go to blue states for their abortions so demographics may not be an issue at all.
This will be a big win for the right as it negates judicial activism and may pave way to ending gay marriage.
Optically these protests are lining up to potentially being the left’s Charlottesville and Jan 6th. Churches have already been vandalized along with a crisis pregnancy center. So much for being pro-choice. They haven’t even marched on the SCOTUS judges’ houses yet. I don’t think the right ever did anything as brazen as that. Schiff is already talking about packing the court. I think the left is going to fly too close to the sun in this.
I’m not sure you can rely on the numbers given as it pertains to white vs non-white abortions. It is my understanding that some states do not even keep track of the numbers at all. Common sense would seem to indicate non-whites (especially blacks) more often see babies as their lifelong meal ticket, where as white women are motivated by an array of entirely different factors. My gut tells me abortions of white babies are not nearly as outpaced by those of non-whites as your numbers would indicate.
Having said that, even if I am wrong, less abortions of non-white babies is not even close to being a deciding factor in the future of our race and our country. If THAT is the kind of thing we’re relying on to hasten our victory, we’ve already lost.
As someone who doesn’t want blacks or any non-whites anywhere near me or my children, I am still against it on moral principle, period. Except for Jewish babies. We need as many of those abortions as possible.
Excellent piece. Very clear and persuasive.
Here is an edited version of a comment I posted the other day to Robert Hampton’s recent article on this new development in the endless abortion controversy:
The whole pro-life cause has always struck me as nauseatingly liberal – and it has gotten more so over time. “Reinforcing the dominance of liberal norms of morality and governance” (or however Hampton phrased it) is exactly what the ‘life’ issue does, both in substance and in form. My late father was a serious churchgoing Christian, as is my mother (if I take her, that is). My mother couldn’t care less about abortion; I cannot recall her ever bringing it up. My dad actually thought the pro-lifers were weird to be worrying about this issue when the whole country was “going to the dogs.” He also felt there were a lot of “incompetents” who “shouldn’t be allowed to have kids.” He was not a coercive eugenicist (he was pretty libertarian, albeit personally culturally conservative), but he recognized sociobiological realities. He absolutely agreed that women on welfare should not get greater stipends for having more children, and for the right reasons (“it encourages them to breed more of their kind that we get stuck paying for”).
I have long held that pro-life is basically a cult (or, for the non-religious, a cult within a cult). I used to have occasional interactions with pro-lifers during my years working for the GOP and various candidates. As you might expect, most of these were wonderful people, real salt of the earth (and always white, in my experience). But there was, even 30 years ago, a very pronounced liberal tinge to the way they discussed the issue. I once got annoyed with a bunch of them (as I thought their stridency – opposition to a legal abortion option even in cases of rape – was going to hurt our then California Congressional candidate), and when asked my position by one of them, rather ostentatiously said I was “anti-abortion, not pro-life” (if I’d stated my real position – pro-life for whites, pro-choice for nonwhites and white leftists – I would have been booted from the campaign staff, as pro-lifers have since Roe been very important “ground troops” for GOP campaigns; will they continue to be so, post-Roe?). When they asked what the difference was, I explained that pragmatically there was none, but I phrased it the way I did to emphasize that I was a “moral authoritarian” as opposed to someone who passionately cared about individual foeti. I further stated that emphasizing “protecting [unborn] life” instead of upholding moral norms started one down a slippery rhetorical slope whereby one finds it increasingly easier to bypass conservative strictures in the name of “maximizing life”. If one is “pro-life” ahead of all other principles, how can one deny generous welfare benefits to single mothers; expensive [taxpayer-provided] neo- and post-natal care; an ever expanding medical welfare state; or indeed, how can one support capital punishment or the occasional necessities of military power projection and international warfare?
As it turns out, all those left-liberal positions have variously come to be embraced by extensive elements within the prolife community. Calling oneself “anti-abortion”, OTOH, highlights one’s ideological opposition to the allowance of pre-born “infanticide”, as well as one’s upholding of traditional (Western) moral values, without committing oneself to a set of ever-expanding policies which ultimately rob whites, and weaken white and Western power.
Hampton (and now Johnson) is right that abortion is not our fight, nor is it an important fight. Even among white female abortion clients, how many hail from our more dysgenic elements? I’ve never known a white woman who’d had an abortion (and I’ve asked around a lot, including among strongly pro-choice women who attach no stigma to the practice). Few of the women with whom I’ve discussed the issue admitted to having friends who’d had abortions. I’m not sure what abortion demographics were in the immediate aftermath of Roe (I was in grade school when it came down), but for many decades now abortion has been overwhelmingly a lower class phenomenon (and disproportionately a nonwhite and especially black one, too, as Hampton points out). Indeed, I wonder (without bothering to do my own research, I admit) how many white females obtaining abortions are actually aborting pure white children? A lot of underclass whites (since the 90s, if not earlier) are also miscegenators, and among poor whites who disdain miscegenation, you will find many who are Christians (or plain rustics with traditionalist outlooks) who disdain abortion, too. Does anyone have data on how many pure white children in America are aborted annually? I bet it is a smallish minority of the total number of abortions.
Constitutionally, repealing Roe is the right position. It was blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the states had various policies on this in place at the time of its ratification. If the Framers had wished to make unrestricted abortion on demand a superordinate Federal right, they could have enacted an amendment to the Constitution to that effect at the same time as the others that comprise the Bill of Rights. That they did not leads us necessarily to conclude that they did not consider abortion to be a Constitutional matter; they were content to leave abortion policy to be variously shaped by the several states. Thus, the Roe Court, in claiming that the Framers really intended their Constitution to outlaw any restrictions on abortion access at any level of jurisdiction, is prima facie ludicrous. And reading the case one quickly discovers that, despite its length and enormous mass of (juridically extraneous) historical detail, its author, Justice Blackmun, never actually offers any serious attempt to render the Roe decision a legal opinion rooted in Constitutional reasoning, other than showing it to be in the line of “privacy” cases descending from the already Constitutionally suspect Griswold v. Connecticut. It’s quite amazing, really. This judicial fiat nature of the decision is another reason so many on the Right have opposed it.
Prowhites should stay out of this as much as possible. I think the political effect in the short term will be fairly muted. I have friends desperately worried this leak was designed to gin up support for the Democrats in November, and will be successful in this. I’m guardedly optimistic that most people don’t care that much about abortion (not next to inflation, the economy, and crime, as well as, in the southwest, the border), and that the ones who do are already pretty evenly divided between their respective sides.
I think the longer term effect will be similarly ambivalent, but slightly positive. OTOH, some otherwise desirable abortions might be prevented. However, this will be muted by the facts that places likely to ban abortion completely already make obtaining abortions difficult, while people already do travel to more abortion-friendly states (and such abortion-tourism will presumably simply increase). The total number of abortions might not fall that much. OTOH, this might slightly accelerate the ideological sortitioning process across the country. I don’t know how many prolifers will move to abortion banning states for that reason alone. I suspect very few. That’s not the prolife/Christianist mindset. I do, however, foresee a much larger contingent of pro-abortion fanatics fleeing their oppressive “red states”, less because they are desperate to be in pro-choice areas, than general ideological distaste for “moral oppression” and the mentality and culture which produce it.
Progressives like to live with each other, and will go to considerable lengths to do so. I wish Hard Rightists would start behaving similarly (actually they are, so let me say, would accelerate doing so). The more ideo-geographically divided the nation, the better our shot at the Ethnostate (not to mention saving basic civilized living itself).
Prolifers, like conservatives in general, love to one-up the Left with their own premises, not grasping that this put them at a longer term disadvantage.
Agree, I don’t think it’s a vital issue that should divide us at this website. I think that, much as your father alluded, abortion and gay rights are what I like to call “theology” issues that were more or less invented in the 1990s in order to draw attention away from pressing “temporal” issues, such as immigration, the borders, and pointless engagement in the Middle East, which enjoyed full spectrum acceptance and approval. Abortion and gay rights existed prior to that, yes, but there was not the hysterical and strident division over the issues. That was manufactured by the political class to create division and a source of political theatre over which elections were fought without alluding to the real issues, similar to how BLM was invented as a faux crisis to destabilize the trump presidency. Trump alluded to the real issues and was savaged for it.
Global Warming or climate change was a “theology” issue invented for the left, mainly by al gore. It too existed before that too, but was engaged rationally, but after gore achieved a level of committed hysteria in the Democrat platform that had not existed before. It warned against some millenarian catastrophe in the distant future, which no one could know about with certainty, and so we had to obey the leftists, lol. Abortion and gay rights are really about what will happen in the supposed next world, and have no bearing on the well being of people in the present reality. To the extent they do, like abortion’s impact on crime and eugenics, are not even the issues on which the ideologues engage the issues, rather exasperation over “what a woman does with her body”, or similar nonsense.
If we’re that concerned over something possibly sentient, why are we not so concerned over a lamb or a turtle, which are certainly sentient? It all comes down to the myth of human supremacy. Imagine a group of bonobos behaving in such a self-important way; it would be ridiculous. There’s a place for superstition, but it should be acknowledged as such.
The pro-choice logic of WN is almost always just a backdoor feminist trick. It is *not* eugenic. All of this theoretical nonsense about ‘reducing crime’ is unfalsifiable because it is never just one thing, and it certainty isn’t this nonexistent futures market of hellions because babies do not commit crime.
By this logic, since most babies killed were white, we never went back to the moon because many of our future scientists were disallowed life.
The crime bill alone more quantifiably reduced much of black violence because it was primarily black felons jailed.
The dysgenic argument also does not factor in because any birth defects (Down’s Syndrome, autism) or lopsided genetic disasters (ugly, incel, outbreeding depression etc) generally do not or cannot reproduce anyway because they are unselected by women.
Abortion shills (who simply want it both ways) conveniently leave out that **far more white children** have been killed than any nonwhites. You cannot even begin to imagine how many Redwood forests of white family trees have been crushed in the womb in the last half-century before they could even take root.
For what? Because blacks were also aborted? Our majority over nonwhites would be even greater today had abortion never become mainstream. The white coefficient was disastrous in this regard when whites were 85 percent of this country at this time if you actually look at the abortion tables.
Only until very recently were most abortions nonwhite. Do not give me the ‘disproportionate’ argument because that is just a low-base effect since abortion is roughly 1/4th of what it was in 1980 and declining for many reasons.
So abortion is another matter than just eugenics. It’s just feminism, which is anti-white, not WN. It is wanting promiscuous women to keep their options open, not create white children. Wouldn’t you want to see traitorous white women carry the scarlet letter of a mixed race baby so you know who to avoid?
The most absurd argument is ‘backdoor-alley’ abortions taking the place of ‘safe’ abortions as recourse. Women do not and will not do that. They will simply adjust and assimilate like they always do in any environment, meaning they will have less sex, which comes with its own problems.
Assuming this ruling actually happens, which it probably will not, does not even mean abortion will be outlawed. It will go back to the states. The population centers where it matters will still very much remain open (NYC, Chicago, California).
Lastly, Republican states have passed pro forma anti-abortion legislation based on the Nordic Model anyway, where somehow only the men are criminalized (even the Uber driver dropping her off at the Burger King next door as an unwitting accomplice) even though it is the amoral woman who caused all of this.
Not only has delayed motherhood reduced our total fertility rate, it has also shifted mostly youthful pregnancy to mostly geriatric pregnancy, which is more dysgenic in itself than any social dilemma pro-choice advocates can possibly name.
And it is not just the pro-choice crowd that is at fault because the family values crowd also helped destroy ‘teen pregnancy,’ which then subsequently annihilated 20-something pregnancy. So now the median age of first motherhood is 30, and only increasing until it reaches the ceiling, whereas it was around 20 in the 1960s. That has ‘spaced out’ generations. So now after 60 years you have only two generations, whereas before you had three generations.
Read my lengthy comment above. Some of your assertions are valid (abortion empowers feminism, and feminism is bad racially), but you’re wrong wrt the eugenic effects of contemporary abortion. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute has been studying these issues a long time, and abortions have been disproportionately black (and I strongly suspect, underclass black) at least since the 90s.
Doubtless, abortions have harmed the white race – in the past (and presumably still in heavily majority white nations; abortion except for rape cases should be banned in places like Poland and Hungary). But what may have been true in the 1970s no longer holds today, at least in the USA.
Of course, I suspect the repeal of Roe won’t actually change the number of annual abortions, or their demographics, all that much. I support this repeal (albeit guardedly) if only because I care about a) the integrity of Constitutional jurisprudence, and b) undermining feminism.
Talk about verbose. This response is a mess, frequently attributing to me views I never indicated I held. Learn to think, then write, then we can talk (you can start the learning process by re-reading my lengthy comment carefully).
Sorry, but nobody is reading that. Every possible answer was rebutted. Be more concise. Nobody is required to read a boring book.
<I>Legalizing abortion nationwide through Roe v. Wade is one of the few liberal triumphs that actually works in the demographic favor of whites. </i>
What are the others?
I was being generous. It might well be the only one.
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