Counter-Currents
1,907 words
Right-wing dissidents often argue that the American debate over abortion is a waste of political resources. Leftists almost never agree that fighting for “the right to choose” diverts attention away from more important issues, because egalitarianism requires that a woman (or a “birthing person”) have complete control over her (or his!) reproductive capacity.
For the Leftist, a policy that “forces” a woman (or a man!) to give birth is a fundamentally backward policy that cannot exist in a society that claims to value equality between the sexes — or genders, or whatever they’re calling them now. The question of whether or not abortion ever constitutes the killing of a baby is irrelevant, because not allowing abortion at any stage of fetal development is tantamount to a conscious decision to return to the old-fashioned patriarchy. The Leftist, therefore, cannot budge on this issue.
The Right-wing dissident skeptical of the pro-life movement may or may not understand why abortion is so important to the Leftist, but if he does, he doesn’t tend to focus on it. Instead, he argues that abortion is not an objectively important issue in the big picture, and draws conservatives’ attention and political resources away from the one issue that really matters: demographic change. Part and parcel of that argument is the fact that blacks and Hispanics have the lion’s share of abortions, and so outlawing abortion seems to be a sure way to exacerbate our demographic problem. For many Right-wing dissidents, opposition to abortion is the epitome of short-sighted conservatism, and is often cited as evidence of Christianity’s corrosive influence on white society.
These Right-wing critiques of the American pro-life movement are valid. Objectively speaking, from a purely scientific perspective, I think that most of us on the Dissident Right can agree that abortion is some kind of “homicide.” Where we tend to disagree is on the so-called “social questions”: What sociological effects does legal access to abortion cause? What kind of society is produced when women can unilaterally choose to terminate their pregnancies for any reason? What sort of effect, if any, will that policy have on our long-term survival as a people? We also tend to disagree on the basic morality of abortion: Assuming abortion is some sort of homicide, is it murder? And regardless of what kind of homicide it is, is there any issue that is more important than our survival as a people? In other words, even if it is tantamount to genocidal homicide in American society, is it justified?
I don’t pretend to be able to answer these questions or solve this debate. What I want to comment on is the fact that the abortion debate in American politics is a uniquely European-American debate, and is deeply symbolic within the politics of European-Americans specifically. I was reminded of this fact recently when my wife and I were dissecting a debate that she had engaged in with her colleagues in the medical field shortly after Roe was overturned by the Supreme Court.
I red-pilled my wife on all the relevant issues before we were married, but she is still on that part of the intellectual journey where one is shocked by the perversity and simpleness of the Left-leaning Non-Player Character (NPC). She also occasionally falls back into the habit of thinking that there can be truly “based” non-whites. In the wake of Roe’s overturning, she was rudely reminded of the fact that white Americans are the only people who can be truly “based.”
She has a colleague who is an immigrant from India. I have personally met him and even broached the topic of race and IQ with him, and he was favorably disposed to what I was saying. He appears to have what we Americans would consider conservative, bourgeois views on most issues. So far, so based. The Republican Party hacks would love to make this guy the next Dinesh D’Souza, if only because he’s less of a nerd.
My wife and I are Right-wing dissidents of the pro-life variety, but this is not to say that she and I don’t enjoy hearing arguments from Right-wing dissidents of the pro-choice variety. As I mentioned above, the American pro-life movement can be validly critiqued. However, the liberal NPC critiques of the pro-life movement are better described as hysterical shrieks and formulaic recitations of slogans. My wife was shocked when the paranoid ululating of her white female colleagues was directed against her for the first time. She did an excellent job of undermining their slogans and showing them that their views were basically wrong, but she, being newly red-pilled, didn’t feel that she had done a good enough job.
This is where she made the mistake of not leaving well enough alone: She tried to recruit the support of her “based Indian” colleague. She was disappointed to report to me that he was completely indifferent when it came to the issue of abortion, and even tried to make the white feminist NPC’s absurd arguments appear reasonable.
You Can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
I explained to her that she had just had an important experience that was similar to one I had 15 years ago in college. I had befriended a Muslim immigrant from Palestine, bonding with him over the issue of Israeli influence over American foreign policy. He seemed to understand the difference between white Americans like me and the Jewish elites who have outsize power in setting American policy toward the state of Israel. I wasn’t in favor of his being here, but I figured that since he was here, he might as well have sensible and nuanced views on Americans and American foreign policy. And so we became friends — or so I thought.
The moment I realized I didn’t like this guy was when I heard his take on abortion. There is no doubt that Jews have played an important role for more than a century in the toppling of traditional gender roles in the United States. Regardless of whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, one must admit that Jews are overrepresented in the ranks of Leftist agitators who see women’s unrestricted legal access to abortion as a sine qua non in the pursuit of their ultimate goal: egalitarianism.
My Muslim friend at the time didn’t disagree with my claim that Jews are overrepresented in the fight for abortion. Rather, he disagreed with me regarding my claim as to their motives. He basically argued that abortion was a non-issue — that it was essentially boob bait for the bubbas. Yes, Jews were overrepresented in the pro-choice movement, but that was only because they were using the issue to distract Americans from what they were doing with Americans’ money and military. Sound familiar?
Hearing this argument from a Palestinian immigrant rubbed me the wrong way, and I never forgave him for it (we lost touch soon after). I was offended to hear some blasé brown Muslim foreigner explain to me that a policy directly related to the social framework in which American sexual culture and practices are curated is “just a distraction.” In fact, not only was it “just a distraction,” but the Jews, according to him, are using abortion to distract white idiots like me from what they were doing to the Palestinians in the Levant. (From that moment on, I have been rooting for the Israelis against the Palestinians, by the way.)
You see, as a Right-wing dissident, you may be in favor of retaining abortion’s status legal in the United States, but that doesn’t mean that you should dismiss the current abortion debate in American politics as a mere “distraction.” The abortion debate’s political, cultural, and even racial antecedents explain its symbolism what the debate is really all about. There is a reason why European-Americans — and really only European-Americans — get worked up over the issue of abortion.
A mere decade and a half after America established her preeminence in the West’s post-war order, oral contraception was licensed in the United States, and ten years after that, nearly half of American married women were using it. “The pill” was the source of the most important twentieth-century debate in the Catholic Church. Artificial contraception and abortion helped revolutionize Americans’ sexual practices and their understanding of the family, and this revolution sparked a backlash from those who saw the revolutionary changes as bad for the country.
Note well that this all happened when America could still plausibly be called a “nation.” We were around 90% white, and those who weren’t white were a definitely-not-white underclass that no red-blooded American had any intention of assimilating. In other words, the debate over abortion was part of a broader issue in a culture war that was fought between countrymen. This culture war was fought to settle such questions as whether we are a religious (Christian) nation or a secular nation of commerce, liberalism, and modernity; whether or not we are egalitarians; whether we are traditional or progressive; and whether we understand ourselves as a people with a particular identity or as a proposition nation. When the debate over American sexual practices, reproductive strategies, and family structure began in earnest in the 1960s, those who could be characterized as secular liberals inspired by egalitarian and progressive values, who believed that America is a set of ideas and Americans are people inspired by these ideas, were the ones who favored the revolutionary changes made possible in part by women’s unrestricted access to abortion.
A war fought between countrymen is, of course, a civil war, and those who fought on the side of tradition, religion, and old-fashioned nationalism lost. Even though they lost, however, the rank-and-file never submitted or sued for peace. While it’s true that they allow themselves to be manipulated by Republican Party masters and conservative charlatans, and while their defeat gets pounded into the very fabric of American society with each passing year, and while they are quite literally being replaced with immigrants by the victors, their spirit has essentially remained intact, much to the chagrin of American progressives who were so embarrassed that Trump was elected in 2016 that they had to invent an absurd conspiracy theory to explain it away.
Thus, a European-American’s stance on abortion cannot usually be critiqued from a purely “rational” perspective. His view is informed not only by rational arguments, but also by his connections with America’s past, back when this debate really was a debate between white people about white babies being aborted by white mothers — white babies who were begotten by white fathers. These were white daughters who would be faced with choices that perhaps they should have been prevented from having to make — or choices that they should have been empowered to make. And it wasn’t just “generic white people”; these were Americans who were — and, in those days, only could have been — white.
Hence, brown immigrants, or brown people in general, cannot understand the symbolic significance of the abortion issue to white people in America (for that matter, non-American white people probably can’t understand European-Americans’ political obsession with the issue). American browns will regard it as a nonissue mostly because they have no real connections with America’s past.
And so if you are one of these folks on the Dissident Right who thinks that the abortion issue is a waste of time and energy, let me say this: You’re not entirely wrong, but there’s nothing you can do about the issue’s significance, because it’s simply too much a part of European-American political culture.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
23 comments
This was very insightful. I’d not thought of the abortion issue as primarily a ‘modernity’ versus ‘tradition’ cultural issue among Whites. But the conflict is rooted in the ‘one-size-fits-all’ political solution proposed by either side. Now that the option to legally impose their different cultural perspectives has been made available on a local level, I wonder what we’re going to see. Will the ‘traditionals’ accept different people have different traditions or will they aver the modern view that all laws have to be the same for everyone everywhere over which they exercise political authority?
In the end, the trust test of ethics is what you do when you have power.
E. Michael Jones had an interesting interview explaining how the overturning of Roe is the beginning of the end of ZOG. That is why you should support this largely symbolic legislation. It absolutely left feminists snakebitten for the first time in 60 years. Any white person against this is a traitor. So many wignats speak of the 14 words so much without actually safeguarding the lives of white children. They only simp for feminism, which is a worse enemy than ZOG.
E. Michael Jones says race is an illusion. He adamantly denies the existence of the white race. Ergo, it’s dumb to talk about white race traitors and white children while citing EMJ.
It’s always staggering to see how many contradictions the religious brain can hold at the same time without realizing it.
I once got a street preacher to admit that he believed in both predestination and free will. He looked befuddled for a moment, and then changed the subject.
EMJ has done some interesting scholarly work. I don’t think that necessarily translates to his having uniquely-qualified political insights. I don’t think that overturning Row v Wade is the end of ZOG. I’m not even sure it’s not welcomed by ZOG. The anti-abortion movement was the only White moment with any organization at the grassroots level. My suspicion is that organization could very well wither to nothing or be used to do something really stupid like pursue a national ban on abortion.
There isn’t a single thing that overturning Roe v Wade does that (a) cannot be undone in due course with a new SCOTUS or that (b) cannot be engineered to hurt Whites in the long run.
Always look a gift horse in the mouth.
You guys love being negative. That’s what I’ve learned. You want to always be underdogs. Don’t you ever get tired of losing or are you just too comfortable doing it?
No. I’m an optimistic person. But I’m also realistic. I accept that some folks – anti-abortion folks -want to take a victory lap around this issue. I’m just not joining in. SCOTUS didn’t end the abortion struggle. They just transferred it to ‘purple’ states where the struggle will continue to divide Whites while our racial enemies continue to dispossess us.
Racial politics changes who is the ‘us’ and who is the ‘them’ in ways not accounted for in typical political discourse.
I see no reason to celebrate an outcome that is just as likely to result in more bitterness between Whites than to resolve things in such a way that Whites can move on.
So in other words you feel too comfortable being the underdog. The 3 main abortuaries are still intact (NYC, Chicago, California) and it’s almost entirely nonwhite there. This is a huge victory that for once is more than just about ‘owning the libs.’ I cannot believe none of you see this. This is a preceding event that further separates the states/regions on the road to separatism. If they want to live in our regions they have to adjust.
What it will do is simply move the debate to the local level, which is not entirely bad. At least it will force elected officials to make the decisions (and in theory, accountable to voters) rather than appointed officials who are insulated from the electoral effects of their decisions.
I’m 100% for devolution. But this issue is not going to be amicably resolved even in ‘red’ states in the ‘Bible Belt’. There’s going to be endless struggle between the urban voters and rural suburban voters and, as the author points out, this is simply going exacerbate a preexisting tension between Whites. It’s a lose-lose situation for White Identity Nationalists. No matter who ‘wins’, some Whites are going to resent the actions of other Whites. Unless the problem gets pushed down the country or lower level, Whites in majority-White states are going to be at each other’s throats.
Any state with a major city surrounded by rural and exurban locales is going to be a hot-bed of struggle.
On the other hand, if the various state-houses cannot craft a via state-wide resolution, maybe the matter will devolve to the county level and the process of political mitosis will be given additional impetus.
Whites oppose abortion the most, Hispanics the next most, and Asians and Blacks the least. It’s interesting that Hispanics oppose abortion more than Asians are blacks. Could be a greater similarity in behavior as well as appearance, genes, etc. White people and to a lesser extent Hispanics have spacey empathy. They care more for animals and members of other races. For example, a baby-sized dog is like catnip to young white or Hispanic woman, but young black women are less enthusiastic. This spacey empathy may be why whites oppose abortion more in America. Of course, adhering to traditional religious norms probably inspires abortion opposition more than race, but I suspect race plays a role other things being equal.
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/public-opinion-abortion-majority-support
The British media and the British left were fixated for about a week by the Supreme Court’s decision. There were predictable street demonstrations. At the same time, the left seems not to have noticed the restrictions in Poland and Hungary, both members of the EU which the left wishes to rejoin. Neither have they noticed the restrictions in Ukraine.
There have been only a handful of commentators willing to say that it’s none of our business and that very few non-Americans understand the issues.
It has been an illustration of the power of the globalist mainstream media. There are intelligent but naive people in Britain who gave been persuaded that the decision to leave abortion to the democratic process in each state if the US is a real threat to the availability of abortion in the UK. That’s despite the law here being largely unchanged since 1967, decades before any woman of child bearing age was born.
“We’re all living in Amerika Amerika ist wunderbar We’re all living in Amerika Amerika, Amerika”
At this point various European countries are merely the local extensions of GAE. It’s no impropriety for the imperial subjects to protest the developments in the Core.
UK has always been the most reliable one in no small part thanks to the shared ethnic kinship (which was predicted by Bismarck). British BLM protests were the biggest giveaway last year.
This is a great article and very good point. The world I grew up in told me I was supposed to have it all. It wasn’t just available to me if I wanted it, it was important I do it that way: go to college, be sexually active, don’t look for a marriage-material man yet because I needed an exciting career first. However, I will share with you that in my senior year I met a man who was in graduate school for his law degree who pursued me like there was no tomorrow. I wouldn’t sleep with him for months and months of dating. Well, he proposed and gave me a ring. When I found out I was pregnant he wanted me to get an abortion because he wasn’t ready for that yet. That broke something in me. I didn’t have the baby and I didn’t marry him.
I read a lot in dissident circles about how this is all the fault of loose and awful women, and I agree in large part. But from my experience and that of many of my friends I can assure you that men use abortion for their convenience just as much. It gave them just as many options as it did for women, and like kids in a candy store with no adults around, everybody got sick eventually.
Abortion (even post birth abortion) is good for certain undesirable types
I didn’t have the baby…
How come? What happened? You got rid of the fetus? Guess what. Shitty men sometimes produce wonderful children. And good men can and do produce rancid offspring. There are no guarantees in this world in such matters.
“Shitty men sometimes produce wonderful children.”
My family can attest to that. My eldest cousin has had three children, all boys, by her first husband who was unfortunately abusive against her, and now has had a girl by a second and kinder man. But they’re all exceptional little rugrats and I’ve had the esteemed pleasure of being a positive role model for them, something equivalent to the uncle of second cousinship. Her oldest is entering a secondary school for advanced students after the Summer, and I helped him write the essay which allowed him to attend!
@Uncle Cousin.
It is so nice to hear that you are helping to raise all those children. It is such hard work for parents and they need all the help they can get.
“(From that moment on, I have been rooting for the Israelis against the Palestinians, by the way.)”
The fact I can’t tell if this is a joke says a lot about the state of the only dissident right.
This article glosses over the fact that most non-white countries are much more anti-abortion than Europe & America. It also glosses over the fact that you can find plenty of “pro-life” Black & Hispanic Democrats, but scarcely even one white pro-life Democrat. There are polls on this.
Wignats always lose for a reason. Their hatred of white normies and Christians is greater than any other passion. Once you get beyond their latest shuffled beliefs, you’re left with shilling for MSM like Richard Spencer.
As mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the post above, non-whites have the most abortions in America, so we can strike them from the debate — though I do see their numbers rising from massive immigration, mostly from Catholic countries which prohibit both birth control and abortion, and their own propensity for laziness about using birth control.
So, leaving Roe V Wade in place is definitely to their advantage but not to ours . Even ignoring the possibility of eternal fires of hell, they couldn’t get an abortion if they wanted to. So their ranks grow.
But White women unfortunately come in two flavors on this issue — moral and amoral. The latter group seem to lie predominantly in America today, and these types we brand as sluts.
These see sex as a fun game and would abhor babies and family life as the end of their fun and games. We can actually write them off as being members of the White race, for they have nothing to add to our way of life. Again, leaving RVW in place is an advantage to us, since their I.Q, is usually low and their mora outlook would just leave their kids at a disadvantage in life all around
And lastly, the typical White woman with a reasonable I.Q, and a moral compass doesn’t need RVW in any way — she will marry and have kids. And lucky is the may who finds and cherishes her.
Overseas, abortion is absolutely controlled by the world’s three largest religions:
Catholic and Evangelical Christianity, both of which absolutely forbid birth control and abortion, under pain of excommunication and eternal hellfire
Islam in which men merely beat women into compliance with childbearing, from what I’ve heard
Hiduism, which is patriarchal as well, and totally family-oriented, so childbearing is at a high level.
Catholicism and the other Christian sects work in White favor worldwide producing more White children in Europe and other White enclaves. However, when practiced in non-White countries such as in the whole of Africa and throughout Oceanis, South America and the Caribbean, they produce myriads of mixed-race children. African tribes, Christian or Tribal religions, have the largest birthrates worldwide, all African Blacks.
China formerly had a one-child limit law and women were forced to abort any following pregnancies. There are 1.2 billion people in China now, and they have just raised their childbearing limit to 3. So, China, Africa, India and Islam are our greatest threats — not Roe V. Wade.
Max Richardson is right that the abortion debate was originally about a new ruling elite, which included Jews and feminists, changing the laws to facilitate killing enormous numbers of White babies. It was natural and proper for White with healthy, pro-natal values to oppose this.
Roe v Wade largely froze the debate for a long time. The pro-abortion side now had the Constitution to appeal to; practically speaking, it did not need any new arguments. The rhetoric and the emotions of the abortion debate remained much the same over the decades, while the racial context changed.
There is something else. Constitutionally supported abortion came in a social package with replacement-level non-White immigration, civil rights legislation that forced Whites in the direction of mingling with non-Whites and being blended out of existence, affirmative action legislation that selected Whites out in competition with non-Whites, and so on. This package was and is an existential threat to Whites.
The institutions White people relied on to guard our culture and ultimately our existence betrayed us. Our most sacred institutions, the churches, had and have no objection to any of this — except that some denominations, most notably the Catholic Church, had traditions that objected to abortion, as to loose sexual behavior of all sorts.
This, then, was the only topic on which Whites with healthy, natural instincts could appeal to the guardians of our sacred traditions to give us rhetorical and moral support against a genocidal, anti-White agenda.
This funneled a lot of emotion into the abortion debate, where things remained blocked and stagnant while generations passed.
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
Edit your comment