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.
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 .