Radix Journal and Counter-Currents have recently been hammering away at the idea that the Alt-Right “must oppose the pro-life agenda.”
About a decade ago, I agreed with many of these same ideas. I was young, irreligious, and unattached in my twenties and didn’t have a reason to think about or care much about abortion. I was reading a lot of Nietzsche at the time and was fascinated with eugenics. Eventually, I outgrew what might be called the “pro-choice temptation” and changed my mind on the subject.
I will say at the outset that I won’t even bother to make a religious argument. I don’t think the people who have bought into this line of thinking will be swayed much by religious appeals. Instead, I will try to lay out a secular and nationalist case against abortion that I wish I had been exposed to while in college:
Wrong In Principle
Abortion is wrong in principle.
It is wrong to kill a defenseless human being. If our cause is about anything, it is supposed to be about “securing the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Yes, I know White Nationalists and Southern Nationalists quibble over the meaning of that, but the sentiment driving it is the same in both cases. At the end of the day, our cause is fundamentally about the world we leave behind for our descendants, not universal abstractions like “freedom” or “equality.”
How can you possibly square that with a White woman or a White couple killing their own kid? I don’t think you can. I don’t think you can tell a White couple they are supposed to care about the welfare of their descendants, but that they are free to abort them anyway if they are too inconvenient to their lifestyle. I don’t think it is “pro-White” to sacrifice a White child to kill two Black children. It is anti-black.
Wrong In Strategy
The mother-child bond is the strongest of all human bonds.
Eugenicists support severing that bond. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that leftists want to abolish that bond as they want to pervert natural instincts and unravel the “oppressive” social fabric in general. Why on earth though would someone who is willing to kill their own child – who favors a culture where the freedom to kill your own child whenever you feel like is an accepted principle – care about a bond as weak and abstract as White racial solidarity or descendants they no longer have?
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that cultures which have legalized abortion have simultaneously deadened their own racial instincts and are facing a demographic nightmare. Perhaps there is a correlation because legalized abortion is a symptom of permissiveness and indifference to the fate of future generations?
Wrong In Philosophy
The pro-choice movement is liberalism applied to the family.
Like other aspects of the Sexual Revolution, the results have been disastrous. It is the freedom of a rights-bearing individualist to divorce your spouse, the freedom to discard your offspring for being inconvenient to your chosen lifestyle, the freedom of liberated women to go to college in their peak years of fertility, the freedom to engage in miscegenation and fornication, the freedom to dedicate your life to pursuing a career and material rewards without suffering the shame of social stigma, the freedom to engage in a homosexual relationship, the freedom to be a moral degenerate, etc.
All these modern “freedoms” and “rights” are related. They all uncork the sexual impulse and channel it toward individual dissolution rather than reproduction and raising the next generation. Such a society will be full of blue-haired lesbians, angry feminists, and embittered MGTOWs. By definition, it will have a negative birthrate because future generations are such an afterthought in a me-obsessed world.
The nationalist worldview is starkly opposed to the liberal worldview. Liberals want to tear down the social order in order to build a new one on the basis of abstractions like “freedom” or “equality” or “social justice.” In contrast, a nationalist is someone who believes society should be based on natural organic bonds: racial and ethnic affinity, shared culture and values, meaningful blood ties that link the “individual” into web of generations that unites a person with his or her ancestors and descendants.
Abortion severs the mother-child bond which is the strongest of all organic bonds. Eugenicists would throw away the family in order to artificially breed a “superior race” that fits their vague Aryan Platonic ideal.
The Übermensch
Eugenicists talk a lot about “identity” these days.
“Identity” is the big new thing, but sometimes eugenicists reveal their true feelings with statements like “the alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense” or “we should give positive incentives to raise the fertility of some and lower the fertility of others” or “for eugenic purposes, it might be very useful to fertilize a dozen eggs, sequence their genomes, choose only to implant the best, and wash the rest down the drain.”
Wow, it turns out that White identity isn’t that important after all. “White identity” is not good enough for Nietzschean supermen who contemplate aborting those who suffer from Down Syndrome with glee even when those highly infertile people obviously pose no “dysgenic” threat whatsoever to the community. Some eugenicists go even further and look forward to the day when human embryos can be sequenced and custom-made to order and all the inferior ones, not just those with Down Syndrome, but those who are afflicted with a potentially unlimited list of conditions defined by eugenicists (just imagine the potential for abuse here), can be diagnosed as unfit to live.
For all their talk about “identity,” the true passion of many eugenicists is “superiority.” They’re not white supremacists though. Whereas some conservatives believe White working class communities deserve to die, some eugenicists believe White working class children don’t even deserve to live.
I won’t linger too long on this sort of quackery. I will just note that genetic defects are a perfectly natural and inevitable consequence of mutations. Also, the many animal species that have been bred for qualities that humans find desirable have generally been rendered weak, docile, and inferior to their wild counterparts. Most wouldn’t survive if their human masters were to go extinct.
Eugenics and Abortion
How many times have you heard from eugenicists that we can’t afford to contest social issues like homosexuality or abortion?
Is this not interesting? The same people who say we can’t outlaw or restrict abortion are strongly in favor of even more implausible government mandated eugenics schemes. There is far more public support for restricting abortion than making dystopian science fiction movies a reality in the United States.
We’re Being Swamped
This is what America looked like in 1970 on the cusp of Roe v. Wade when abortion on demand was illegal in all but a handful of states:
Alabama – 74 percent White
Georgia – 74 percent White
South Carolina – 69 percent White
Mississippi – 63 percent White
Florida – 77 percent White
Louisiana – 66 percent White
Texas – 66 percent White
Oklahoma – 89 percent White
North Carolina – 77 percent White
Tennessee – 84 percent White
Arkansas – 81 percent White
Missouri – 89 percent White
Kentucky – 93 percent White
Virginia – 81 percent White
West Virginia – 95 percent White
California – 76 percent White
Hawaii – 37 percent White
Alaska – 77 percent White
Washington – 94 percent White
Oregon – 96 percent White
Idaho – 96 percent White
Nevada – 87 percent White
Arizona – 74 percent White
Utah – 94 percent White
New Mexico – 54 percent White
Colorado – 85 percent White
Wyoming – 92 percent White
Montana – 95 percent White
Illinois – 83 percent White
Indiana – 92 percent White
Ohio – 90 percent White
Michigan – 87 percent White
Wisconsin – 96 percent White
Minnesota – 98 percent White
Iowa – 98 percent White
Kansas – 93 percent White
Nebraska – 95 percent White
South Dakota – 95 percent White
North Dakota – 97 percent White
New York – 80 percent White
New Jersey – 85 percent White
Pennsylvania – 90 percent White
Maryland – 80 percent White
Delaware – 84 percent White
Connecticut – 91 percent White
Rhode Island – 96 percent White
Massachusetts – 95 percent White
Maine – 99 percent White
New Hampshire – 99 percent White
Vermont – 99 percent White
America has never in its entire history been whiter before or since.
Conservatives Are Pro-Life
It is true that conservatives are pro-life. It is also true that some of the most annoying people in the world and especially on the internet are pro-life conservatives.
Does that mean it is “cuckservative” to be pro-life? A cuckservative is a man who has been tricked by a woman into raising the offspring of another man. He is someone who “whether knowingly or unknowingly, loses control of his future” and who is “participating in the displacement of European Americans — their own children.” Basically, a cuckservative is a fool who loses control over his own genetic future.
If that is the case, what do you call a man or a woman who would kill their own child? Not just someone who is racially apathetic, who doesn’t get race, or doesn’t care about, say, White people in Poland, but someone who is willing to kill their own genetic offspring? If that it is not losing control over your own future, then nothing is. What about the people who applaud the death of 27.9 million European American children? If we ridicule cuckservatives for participating in the displacement of European-Americans, why should we be encouraging White people to abort millions of their own children?
Doesn’t that invite the inevitable comeback from conservatives: at least we aren’t the ones aborting the White race?
Leftists Are Aborting Their Children
This is one of the dumbest arguments out there: liberals are aborting their children, therefore conservatives are winning the demographic battle.
The people who are making this self-serving argument are just pro-abortion. They don’t really believe it themselves. Political ideology isn’t a heritable characteristic. Progressives aren’t genetically transmitting their ideology to their children. Even in the Deep South, most White people believe that miscegenation should be legal in 2016, the sight of which provoked lynch mobs two generations ago. Public opinion on gay marriage is also rapidly shifting here because of the power of the media.
Abortion Has Saved Us
This is an article of faith to many eugenicists: abortion has “postponed, perhaps by decades, the date that we will become a minority in this democracy.”
Here’s what the eugenicists don’t tell you: there were considerably more abortions in the 1980s and 1990s than there are today. The US abortion rate is now at its lowest rate since 1973. The eugenicists will happily point out that, today, White women have 36% of abortions. They don’t tell you that black and Hispanic abortions have surged in recent decades because so many fewer White women are getting them. When abortion was at its peak in the 1980s, it was White women who were getting 2/3rds of abortions.
A generation ago, the overwhelming majority of babies who were aborted were White. Abortion didn’t save us. If anything, it might have accelerated our decline by killing off so many White Millennials.
Down Syndrome and Genetic Defects
In the United States, every year around 5,300 babies are born with Down Syndrome and around 3,100 are aborted due to pre-natal testing. In 2011, an estimated 1,058,490 million abortions were performed, which means Down Syndrome abortions accounted for a whopping 0.29% of total abortions. What’s more, only 3% to 4% of Down Syndrome cases have a heritable component, and of those only 1% of Down Syndrome cases are hereditary. As of 2006, there have been 3 reported cases of men with Down Syndrome and 26 cases of women with Down Syndrome having children.
What about other genetic defects which loom large in the minds of eugenicists? Among women who have abortions, 3% cite a possible fetal health problem. It is also worth noting that less than 1% cite rape or incest as a reason to have an abortion.
Dysgenics
Aren’t women who have abortions likely to be poor and therefore, as the eugenicists hold, inferior? In 2008, 42 percent of women who had an abortion fell below the federal poverty line. It is worth observing here though that among the women having abortions 17.2% are 15-19, 33.4% are 20-24, and 24.4% are 25-29.
The typical woman who has an abortion in the United States is likely to be in her twenties. Does it follow that a knocked up White 20-year-old co-ed at a state university working a minimum wage job is inferior? That makes no sense at all. The same survey from 2008 also breaks the numbers down by education: 12.3% of women who got an abortion in 2008 didn’t finish high school, 28.3% are high school graduates, 39.5% have some college education, and 19.9% are college graduates.
Over half the women who are getting abortions in the United States have attended college. Among unintended pregnancies, 32% of affluent women terminate their pregnancies versus 9% of low-income women. Poor women not trying to conceive are 3x more likely to get pregnant than affluent women, but also 5x more likely to give birth because they tend to keep the baby.
Colorado
Colorado has been singled out and cited as an abortion success story.
Just so you know, the latest abortion numbers from Colorado in 2012 paint a very different story: Non-Hispanic White women are getting 60.8% of abortions in Colorado, Black women are getting 7.2%, Other accounts for 9% and Hispanic for 23%. The birthrate of low-income women that is plummeting in Colorado is likely that of White women.
Colorado was the first state to legalize abortion in 1967. Given that Hispanic abortions have only recently surged in the 1990s and 2000s, it is likely that White women in Colorado were an even greater share of total abortions in the past.
Culling The Black Horde
According to the CDC, 24% of all US abortions were performed on black women in the 1970s. That percentage rose to 30% in the 1980s, 34% in the 1990s, and 36% in the 2000s. From 1973 to 2013, there were 55.7 million abortions. If black women were responsible for 31% of abortions on average over a period of 40 years, then 17.2 million of the 55.7 million abortions since 1973 were black.
What about the other 38.5 million?
Culling The Hispanics
Determining the number of Hispanic abortions since 1973 is trickier. The CDC didn’t start collecting statistics on this until 1990. In 1990, Hispanic women accounted for 11.4% of abortions, 17.2% in 2000 and 21% in 2010. It is reasonable to assume the Hispanic abortion rate was around 7% in the 1980s and probably less than that in the 1970s. The Hispanic share of abortions has grown as their share of the population has increased due to immigration. If Hispanic women were responsible for 14% of abortions over the same time frame, then 7.8 million of the 55.7 million abortions since 1973 were Hispanic.
Culling “Other” Non-Whites
The “Other” category of abortions has ranged from 3.5% in 1985 to 6.5% in 2010. If the “Other” share of abortions has averaged 5 percent since 1973, then 2.8 million of the 55.7 million abortions were “Other” Non-White.
Non-Hispanic White Abortions
If we subtract the 17.2 million blacks, 7.8 million Hispanics, and 2.8 million “Other” Non-Whites from the 55.7 million, then we are left with 27.9 million Non-Hispanic White abortions, which means that 50.1% of abortions in the United States since 1973 have been Non-Hispanic Whites. To put this in perspective, if you killed every single person in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska, you still wouldn’t have 27.9 million.
Eugenicists claim that abortion has been a win for White America because blacks are more likely than Whites to have abortions. What if abortion had been a 40-year-long race war? If 17 million blacks and 28 million Whites had died in the race war, and demographically the White side was still losing ground, would you describe the White side as the victor in the conflict? What if the conflict was still raging after 40 years and 28 million Whites and 28 million non-Whites had died in the race war?
It is worth noting that eugenicists like to decry the bloodbaths that were World War I and World War II. If you added up all the military deaths from France, Britain, and Germany in World War I and World War II combined, it wouldn’t amount to half the number of White children who have been aborted here since 1973.
Too Little Political Capital
When eugenicists are running out of arguments, one of the final cards they like to play is “we don’t have enough political capital” to worry about social issues. This is another self-serving argument. Eugenicists are pro-abortion and it has nothing to do with immigration restriction.
In the US and Europe, one of the primary arguments made by the pro-immigration lobby is that immigration is needed to replace an aging White workforce and to prop up the welfare state programs that aging Whites depend on. As it happens, the 45 million immigrants who have arrived since 1965 have replaced the 45 million Whites and blacks we have aborted since Roe v. Wade.
The Last Gasp
The final argument made by the eugenicists is that the black share of total abortions (31%) is greater than their current share of the American population. Thus, if the black children who were aborted had lived, the black share of the population would grow.
Let’s admit this is true. It is also true that this fundamentally reflects the abysmal White birthrate (1.76 per woman) and the slightly higher birthrate of blacks (1.90 per woman). It is also equally true that this racial disparity is reflected in all the babies who were not aborted. After 40 years of abortion, Non-Hispanic White births fell under 50% for the first time in American history in 2011. No amount of abortion is sufficient to change that.
The Truth
White America is a sinking ship.
The proximate causes of our racial decline are not hard to figure out: the low birthrate, mass immigration, miscegenation and attrition. The ultimate cause, however, is spiritual exhaustion, an unwillingness to live and indifference toward the future.
The solution to this problem is unlikely to be found in abortion, gay marriage, anti-natalism, homosexuality, nihilism, eugenics, and männerbunds. A culture that celebrates homosexuality and miscegenation, passionately champions the causes of gender confusion and women’s liberation, which swipes right and hooks up, which engages in self-loathing, which aborts its own children and imports foreign races to replace them is inevitably going to be one that is dying.
These are all the many heads of the same liberal modernist snake. Oddly enough, eugenics is shot through with the same sort of self-defeating modernism. It is probably not a coincidence that so many of the original eugenicists – among them, Francis Galton, Harry Laughlin, Madison Grant – were childless men.
Charles Davenport, a founding father of American eugenics, believed that “having made our choice in marriage carefully, we, the married pair, should seek to have 4 to 6 children in order that our carefully selected germ plasm shall be reproduced in adequate degree and that this preferred stock shall not be swamped by that less carefully selected.” That was sound advice, the equivalent of the Bible’s “Go forth and multiply,” but it seems to have been rarely followed by his disciples who for all their fervor for better breeding and aborting the unfit are still strikingly more likely to be childless than just about any other group of Americans.
Many no doubt would have to give up homosexuality. Others would just have to give up their daydreaming. Some would have to have to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior or deal with the modern American woman. Still, it is best to lead by example, fellas.
Note: As a side note for pro-life conservatives who might be reading this, I wouldn’t be so quick to blame Hitler. In National Socialist Germany, providing an abortion to an Aryan woman was a capital offense.
Dirty hostile elites.
Jewish media call you the ‘far right’.
It’s time to call the MSM ‘far Jew’.
Warning: this is long and intended mainly for Hunter Wallace, though anyone could get value out of it, agree or disagree.
Thanks to my infant-induced insomnia (I have 4 now) (of my own, if you’re wondering!) I have the opportunity to reply to another quality and original Occidental Dissent piece.
I try to respond in order:
The religious argument passed upon: while it is not likely that people will convert immediately to any religious argument, that doesn’t negate its power in the long term. People can and do convert. The only thing I question is which religion, and are we going to accept it whole cloth? For instance, if I accept, say, the Baptist Church’s (by far the dominant religion among Southern whites) stance on abortion, do I have to accept its stance on race?
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-21/news/mn-15534_1_southern-baptist
Or do I get to pick and choose? As I’ve said before, religion in America is so popular because it’s whatever the individual wants it to be from moment to moment. How can you make it unpopular? Try to pin it down and impose it on people. People will not understand why they are not allowed to do X because of religion, whether X be abortion or cheering on the death penalty or war or making plans for the morrow.
Abortion: wrong in principle: I agree, especially for my family. When you have a child in modern times, there is a moment when you find out if the child has genetic disease, there was a problem with the test in our recent case and we had to decide if we would act upon the knowledge were the test to be repeated. We decided no. We were not going to abort the baby under any circumstances. Why? It is wrong to kill the innocent, especially your own children. But is that the only or even main question here? The real question is whether we should criminalize abortion, which I don’t agree with. In fact, I would like to see any legal impediments to abortion and birth control swept away. Not all evils must become the purview of the state.
Wrong in strategy: Abortion is not just the current law in America, it is also wildly popular. Like the attempt at Prohibition, any attempt to reverse legal abortion will be swept away in short order once people had a taste of recriminalization. Why is it not good strategy to not go down that path, especially when we have other more pressing matters?
Your argument seems to be a “shaping” strategy, that laws, or arguments for laws, will “shape” opinion and mores. Could one argue that the legalization of abortion antedated its popularity? Much like homosexuality, the decriminalization of sodomy occurred long after the laws became a dead letter as the culture had moved on. Here, you might argue that we have to dig in our heels and start the Grand Push Back against the changes of Modernity on every front.
I disagree. We should accept much of Modernity, and only push back on the Universality of the state, allowing for federalism of a genuine kind, where peoples can pursue their own destinies without having to conform to each and every thing a majority dictates. In the US, for instance, federalism would have worked and still could work wonders. Prohibiting abortion in Alabama, while allowing it in California, for instance. This is what the strategy should be: get the freedom first, then let the laws work themselves out on their own. I personally think that the alleged federalism of the US is dead and that only a separate nation can provide freedom. If that resultant nation criminalizes abortion, I wouldn’t shed a tear. But let’s put the horse before the cart.
Wrong in philosophy: this is a better statement of your Grand Push Back strategy; Modernity is all of a piece so let’s push back against it all. You may be right about that, for instance, once the high ground was obtained by the New (false) Religion against the old religion of Christianity, it was only a matter of time before all the dominoes fell. We see push back against the New Religion in countries like Russia and her allies, and especially in the Islamic world, so it is possible to do this, but even there it seems fragile and prone to defeat by Modernity at any time.
Question: would you apply the same reasoning to oral contraception? The Catholic Church, for instance, opposes both for the same reasons. Would you accept that the question of whether to oppose oral contraception on philosophical grounds should be linked to abortion as part of a pro-life philosophy? I hope you can see without much argument that the politics of such a move would be disastrous in the short term. In the long term, anything is possible through conversion, a lesson the New Religion has employed very well.
The Ubermensch: not much to discuss here as it is incoherent nonsense from the “alt-right”, which is why I don’t want to get married to either the term, or the actual proponents of the incoherent creed.
We’re being swamped: I’m not sure I accept your causality here, but it is worth considering for sure. I would place most of that blame on 1965 immigration bill combined with illegal immigration from Mexico. But could abortion be driving down total fertility? In other words, if all people had to rely on was birth control, would they end up with larger families? I question that. I think that abortion impacts the timing of final family size, making it much later, but that people aren’t having kids for other reasons which abortion is not going to impact much, but it might impact it slightly, between 0 and 1 children on average. That would help us being “swamped” but it is really not the main cause, which is permissivity of the border.
Here is food for thought: isn’t it odd that the country at its whitest was so liberal? And I’ll include the 1965 immigration law. What does that mean?
Conservatives are pro-life: they most certainly are not. It’s a pose without any real substance. Are they pro life when it comes to war and the death penalty? No. What would these so-called conservatives do if abortion was recriminalized (which will not happen any time soon, by the way). They would either chicken out at the last minute, or feverishly work to decriminalize it once they saw the political and cultural outcomes – undesirables, poor whites included, having more children.
I also think you are conflating cuckservative with cuckold. There are differences. A person not wanting to be cucked might actually favor abortion as it would limit other people’s children which he, via the loving apparatus of the state (!) would have to support, as well as increase the number of people his children would have to compete against in the future. The cuckservative is the one arguing that “Democrats are the real racists”, in part because of their support for abortion. Laughable. The reasons listed in this paragraph are perhaps the strongest reasons in favor of abortion to me, and combined with the problems of criminalization, overawe my private moral objections.
Leftists are aborting their children: I agree that this is a weak argument, but is it actually true? Do leftists have more abortions? I think they do. Do leftists raise more leftist children? Rightists more rightists? I don’t know? What does the data say? Enough said on this.
Abortion has saved us: I can’t follow your argument here because I think you misunderstand the concept. Abortion spiked in the 70s and 80s much like divorce spiked, because it was a new technology, so to speak, and people were learning how to use it properly. Both are declining because people are using better technology TO ACHIEVE THE SAME FAMILY END STATE! In the case of abortion, contraception, and in the case of divorce, people just aren’t getting married as much. Whites have learned, whites have moved on. Perhaps the other races will never learn, or take longer to learn. It’s not my concern, as long as we are safely separated from them!
And here I think you need to review your whole argument about demographic impacts and such, because the target/ideal family size will dictate that, and abortion is but one means to that end, not driving the desired end state. If you criminalize abortion, in other words, people will just learn to be ultra careful with birth control and have the same total number of children. This also speaks to why smarter women have more abortions, less children, because they are more fluent with the technology, and are more reachable by ideas of planned family size, whereas stupid people struggle with plans of any kind, to include family plans.
Down syndrome: Since you bring it up, why not address it? Is killing a baby with three 21st chromosomes also murder to be banned? Or is having three 21st chromosomes a justifiable death sentence? You totally sidestep the issue while accusing the other side of misplaying it. For me the answer is simple, since abortion isn’t going to be a crime, it really becomes a private decision. For someone arguing that abortion is criminal murder, this becomes a political Waterloo that can only be defended by impossible acrobatics of logic. Also what about rape, incest, and other objections? Is abortion always criminal murder?
If you say no, it undermines all the moral posturing above. If you say yes, I admire your moral consistency as you lose the political battle in a rout – and lose to the entirety of Modernity as a result? All of a piece?
Dysgenics: You raise some good points, but do not drive the argument home. Is it dysgenic, eugenic, or neutral? My feeling is that it is slightly eugenic (based on the aggregate scholarly exposure to the subject), but that our current society is highly dysgenic! Why are we dysgenic with free abortion? Because the eugenic effects of abortion are “swamped” by other things, such as small family sizes, older motherhood, and welfare as a whole. I would argue that nature would have 1/3rd or less of the men fathering children with all but the most repulsive of women, and the resultant population boom would duke it out over the scraps. I reject nature. I reject it in favor of the eugenics of the near future where genetic engineering will be de rigueur and no matter the genes of the parents, the children will be nearly perfect. Problem solved without abortion or any religious conversion. It will likely be a crime in the future NOT to genetically enhance your offspring; a form of child abuse!
Colorado: I grant that Colorado is not a strong argument for abortion, but I had never heard it before.
Race and abortion: By the simple mathematics of it, the racial imbalances would be even worse without abortion, all things being equal. You can argue that the moral transformation of criminalizing abortion will lead to a better racial outcome by indirect means (the Great Push Back); or that any children gained by criminalizing abortion will be lost by more strict adherence to birth control and family planning (technological substitution). But on the face of it, you are giving me statistics that show that abortion is a net positive for whites. I would gladly accept the criminalization of abortion if it could somehow yield a white ethnostate, as the ethnostate is the answer to the race problem in a way abortion never could be.
Too little political capital: I think this is a strong argument against you, but you hand waive it away. Look at Ireland, a country where abortion was illegal and also subject to non-white immigration. What happened? Family size declined anyway, immigration continued, and white percentages declined. Did the “alt-right” or eugenicists push to legalize abortion in Ireland? I didn’t notice if they did. Rightists probably looked at it with consternation as a sign of defeat on yet another front, as legal abortion is coming to Ireland very soon.
You get to the point in “The last gasp”, abortion is not the decisive issue of demography, unless you can tie it to a spiritual transformation. If abortion were illegal, people would just achieve the same infertility by other means, to include illegal abortion, I might add. The problem is why are people nihilists?
You get to this problem in “The Truth”
The problem is indifference to the future, aka nihilism; a nihilism born of a religious vacuum. The Truth is that Christianity has run its course, and did so among the best minds CENTURIES ago.
It lingers on as a reflex in the least intellectual corners of white society, and currently grows strongest in non-white society. Christianity is a weak horse and will not “Hulk Up” and defeat Modernity at the last minute. Because of the recent Cruz dust up, I have been reviewing some of the Atheism vs Christianity debates (Hitchens, Dawkins et al) and they blow Christianity out of the water with relatively lazy arguments. The best Christian minds have been driven into the hinterlands time and time again by past-their-prime intellects like Dawkins and Hitchens.
At best, Christianity offers an “any port in a storm” defense to whites under siege, but is it really safe harbor when Christianity is majority brown and growing browner by the day, and Christian churches with few minor exceptions ABHOR racism? Is it really the best we can do?
Are we waiting, like the empire in the novel Dune, for a new messiah to sweep away the rot to allow new growth? Hitler thought so, and perhaps his only shortcoming was losing the shooting war. Had he won the war (like Cyrus the Great actually did), we would consider him the new Messiah until the cycles of history inevitably brought that to an end.
The “alt-right” is part of that seeking process, and may, like Hitler, have to keep Christianity around in a subordinate form because it is the easiest way to deal with it. But my guess is that Christianity will go the way of its predecessor, Cyrus the Great’s Zoroastrianism, and be swept away in a brown tide only to live on as a racial memory in refugium, without any real energy of faith behind it.
The recent primary votes in Texas and other places one would have expected to understand Trump and the Fateful Hour, have shown that too many American Christians are not with us, and would thwart any attempt to Partition America. I, a non-Christian, am supposed to stand between the Enemy’s bayonets and them
on issues such as abortion? No. “Worse is Better” extends to religion as much as politics.
That’s a lot to respond to:
Race and abortion: There is no discernable net advantage to Whites from abortion. This is particularly true in the case of blacks. 17 million blacks were aborted vs. 28 million Whites. If this had been a race war, then it wouldn’t have been worth it. Throw in other non-Whites and the body count shows it was the bloodiest stalemate in history.
After 40 years of abortion, Whites have fallen under 50 percent of total births. Non-Whites are going to increase their population share regardless because of immigration and the low white birthrate. You can’t overcome a sick and dying culture through abortion.
What’s interesting about this is that abortion clearly had the greatest impact on White Millennials. By 2 to 1, it was White Millennials who were aborted in the 1980s and 1990s. Now that White Millennials are in their childbearing years, the demographic impact of abortion is being felt immediately in the total number of White births.
Political capital: as I noted above, all these various examples of racial and cultural degeneration triumphed together at the same moment in time because they are really all symptoms of the same underlying principle, which is that the self-expression and self-fulfillment on the individual is more important than the welfare of future generations. Therefore, it is wrong to curtail the “freedom” or the “rights” of the autonomous individual.
Christianity and atheism: There seems to be a clear relationship between religion and fertility. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single highly irreligious country with legalized abortion that isn’t characterized by a low birthrate. For whatever reason, atheists seem to struggle with replacing themselves. Not all do, but the pattern is too overwhelming to ignore.
As far as Christianity and race goes, the only group of people who are more strongly opposed to “racism” than Jews are atheists and agnostics. Years ago, I quickly realized that atheists are even more closeminded on the issue than most Christians.
Texas and Trump: everyone in the South knows that Cruz won Texas because of Texas pride. If Cruz wasn’t a senator from Texas, Trump would have won easily there. We even had people in the CofCC who voted for Cruz because he was “from Texas.”
Dysgenics: over half of women who abort their children have some college education. I haven’t checked the actual numbers, but I highly doubt that is true of those who are actually born. In reality, those who are aborted might be the cream of the crop given the tendency of affluent and educated women to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Groups like Emily’s List are catering to the quintessential career woman.
Not that college says much, but if I take it at face value that fact tells me that abortion is not a social liability, and it damn well should be.
The Left owns the moral level of conflict, you Hunter and the other intellectuals clearly own the intellectual level of conflict and you LOSE, slowly at first and in the last few years a complete wipeout.
Even your church ladies are scared to scold the pro aborts. Easy enough to scold the few white men “bad boys” but absolutely terrorizing to face those who own the Moral Level of this conflict.
I’m confused.
According to the eugenicists, we are aborting the unfit. Yet half of the women having abortions are college educated. That’s certainly a much larger number than the mothers who are choosing instead to give birth.
This suggests mothers who abort are smarter on average than those who choose not to.
And those women who are aborting could care less about your intellectual opinion, no matter how right you are.
You simply are not in their hierarchy and women are herd animals with a never ending struggle to find a place in a herd.
So as I wrote below you simply must disqualify and put in disrepute those who currently influence women.
I guess it’s suggestive, but definitely not conclusive. “College educated” could mean a crowd of 300lb bluehaired feminist lesbians (who somehow have a knack for getting pregnant despite being lesbians) who are taking gender studies and getting class credits for showing up at BLM rallies.
Also, call me crazy here, but don’t girls go to college at a higher rate than boys nowadays?
Even if they are affluent or more intelligent, they will still lean left, probably to the extreme left. Please stand back and allow them to freely cull their alleles from the gene pool.
We’re Being Swamped: America in 1970 didn’t yet have legal abortion, and the black share of the population had fallen to its lowest point in history. Overall, the track record of abortion-free America is much better than legal abortion America.
Why is that? It is probably because the sick culture that is driving our decline triumphed in the 1960s. Before that, the White birthrate was twice what it is now. It was common in the South for children to have 9 or even 10 siblings in the 1930s and 1940s.
Political ideology isn’t a heritable characteristic.
False.
If Hunter read up on Separated Twin Studies, it might challenge his assumptions.
Good point.
Unfortunately, we haven’t inherited our ancestors views on miscegenation or homosexuality or the family or countless other subjects here in the South.
Then why is the South different from the North if we grew up watching the same propaganda on tv and had the same (or nearly the same) propaganda taught to us in public schools and universities?
Political ideology, like religion, is highly “heritable” in that most of us keep what our parents had. I think it’s 80% in both politics and religion.
Furthermore, we have genetic and gross anatomical (brain anatomy) differences to prove that predisposition toward a political ideology is heritable.
Almost everything has a heritable component. Why would propensity toward liberalism be any different?
Interesting rebuttal to various arguments. How were the numbers of abortions calculated in the 1960s? I think there were more than we would care to admit. Especially before The Pill.
I would think the pill is far more responsible for decimating the White race than abortion. But no one talks about the pill.
Partially my point.
I agree.
I believe I said as much in the last post on the subject.
The pill is an abortifacient. It causes abortions at the very early stages of a pregnancy or it keeps the sperm and egg from uniting.
Yeah, but liberals are limiting their fertility more than conservatives, so it’s still a net gain for our side. Also, from an evolutionary perspective the Pill is little different from any other plague: the population is decimated, but the remainder has some sort of resistance to the plague in question, so future generations are inherently resistant to said plague. Likewise white women are rapidly evolving to be broodier than ever. We will soon have a race that is recalcitrant to feminism and just can’t be talked out of intentionally having large families.
There were only a few states that had legalized abortion except in extreme cases. Colorado in 1967 was the first.
I don’t think anyone in nationalism should take a stand on this other than for fellow nationalists.
Pat Buchanan instead of keeping a narrow focus on nationalism, destroyed his party with this abortion and morality stuff. Concerning yourself with other people’s morality instead of your own, is the behavior of a busybody and will be your political downfall.
When people in power get greedy, I see them do things like this and that’s when the tide turns against them and their enemy kicks them out.
Can you even have a successful nationalism without a healthy morality? Buchanan has thought through these issues.
And he torpedoed his party, thus no nationalism.
Buchanan was right.
Even if you win a political victory, it is ultimately meaningless if you preserve a degenerate culture. The inevitable result of such a culture will be demographic suicide anyway.
The culture we have now can’t and won’t sustain a White majority – period. It is silly we are even talking about abortion when the White birthrate is 1.76. Fiddle with abortion numbers all you want and that number guarantees demographic decline. Remove non-Whites entirely and you have a Japan or a Spain.
Well then, you choose to be 100% right and lose. A common problem.
I don’t know about the Spain situation, but I’m not worried about Japan in the least. The problems of today are only terminal, if technology stands still. Yet tech keeps advancing as long as Japan remains Japanese and White countries remain White. Unlike White nations, Japan is allowed to remain Japanese.
1.) The Left won on principle and political victories followed. The Right won elections and lost on principle. In the long run, the Left won the culture war.
2.) The Japanese have an ethnostate, but have lost the will to perpetuate their own existence. Last time I checked, there will be so few child bearing females soon that the Japanese will grow enfeebeled and eventually extinct within a 100 years or so.
They are very serious about robotics. They want to use robots to look after their old and I assume they could be used to raise their young. That’s what I meant by tech advancing.
Keep Japan Japanese and they have a way out. If Japan turns brown the Japanese are finished.
The left often makes these arguments that the world will end if we don’t do what they want. They always assume technology does not advance.
Maybe the Japanese will replace themselves with robots. Regardless, the Japanese as a people would go extinct and cease to be Japanese.
There are many new technologies being developed, I’m sure you would find immoral. I’ve seen a human ear grown from a
rib, attached to a rat to keep it alive. So I can’t see why artificial wombs would not be possible in the not so distant
future. If people won’t produce their own children, the government may do it for them. Like I said, technology will advance until all White countries turn brown.
In Japan, video games made the demographic problem worse. I assume that sexbots will be a multiplier. A culture that fails the simplest task of life – reproducing itself – will eventually be eliminated.
Japan have a problem with millions of NEETS (Not in Education, Employment or Training) as does the West. But in Japan they go a step further. They become little Howard Hughes. They have anxiety about the outside world and do not leave their bedrooms ever.
So our kids and grandkids won’t be losing wars to Japan. They are some of our top competitors in the intelligence area, so it’s not a bad deal for us if they drop off.
It has been many years since I played a game of chess, but I recall distinctly that you have to first manipulate both yours and your opponent’s pieces into position before executing the killing blow, i.e., the checkmate.
Honestly I skimmed the article, read these arguments a million times, and honestly nothing new or game changing.
Abortion is a symptom, treat it with a million essays and pretend the disease is gone when your sniffles or headache disappear for awhile.
But you moralist busy bodies hate GAME and hence we now have feminine anarchy, from low rent sluts having an abortion a year to church going busy bodies playing Mrs. Jellaby to the morons.
My bit of advice begin by taking women down from that pedestal you put them on.
As I said above, abortion is just one symptom of the Sexual Revolution. It is no coincidence that it triumphed alongside its fellow travelers like homosexuality, miscegenation, and feminism. All of the above are now seen in a liberal culture as legitimate individual self expression.
One high status alpha male could do more to reduce the amount of abortions than the next thousand essays to the dwindling remnant.
AM would have to stand up and say in a clear authoritative voice that he finds women who had abortions as low status, and then stick to it without resorting to intellectual moral hair splitting.
Stop listening to your effeminate preacher or preacherette who wants you to put “mm lady” up on a pedestal. Man is put upon Earth to save the human species from feminine anarchy, period end of story.
Abortion is for prostitutes, it has always been around that subculture. The question is why such a high number of ordinary women are having to seek out remedies for problems that in the past only prostitutes have had to deal with is the issue?
We live in a culture that has enthroned radical individualism and this is the inevitable result.
Sexual revolution. More promiscuity–> more out of wedlock pregnancies.
White pro-lifers should be natural and logical opponents of White Genocide. But how many of them will you find on a good day, 5%, 10%?
Therein lies the problem with the “pro-life movement” Their number one priority is saving all the brown babies of the world. Defending the life of your race in and out of the womb is “racist”.
I’ve seen the “Black Genocide” website. I spend more time fighting with people like Matt Walsh on Twitter than anyone else. Anyway, we have our own good reasons to oppose abortion. Even Hitler agreed and reversed the practice which was legalized in Germany in the Weimar Republic.
Playing devil’s advocate:
You cover the race angle on this pretty thoroughly, but what about the identity angle? Abortion could be seen as net win in the long run if liberal whites are having more abortions than conservative whites who would be more likely to support issues we agree on.
By allowing abortion to be legal, the groups that are more likely to have them will, while the groups that are less likely to have them won’t. This is likely a good thing for people like you and me.
I also wonder what you think about this argument I saw from Heartiste on Twitter:
“Abortion moral calculus for most people:
Does it look like a human? Ban.
Does it look like a fried shrimp? Carry on.”
That’s kind of how I’ve always viewed it as well.
Perhaps though I’m thinking about this too much in a vacuum and not enough in the real world.
I addressed this above.
Miscegenation, homosexuality, and abortion were anathema in the Jim Crow South. That’s no longer the case today. Even gay marriage has a large following now.
After 40 years of abortion, we aren’t becoming more conservative. Instead, we have reached the point where the existence of boys and girls has become a contested issue.
Unfortunately, SJW Millennials were not aborted.
Awesome piece, Hunter. I’m with you here.
“Whereas some conservatives believe White working class communities deserve to die, some eugenicists believe White working class children don’t even deserve to live.”
Ouch! Spot on.
Abortion is the murder of a Baby. That pretty much sums it up. The liberals and feminists love Abortion because it’s extreme Humanism or worship of yourself. The Liberals and Feminists believe the person owns his / her body. Wrong ! God created us and that should be respected including the creation of Life. WPWW !
The bulk of the 28 million were aborted White Millennials and Gen Xers.
Yep. WPWW !
We are in a race war. In principle it is little different from any other war, only with different weapons. Do you believe it would be morally superior to let them grow up first and then kill them after they’ve had a chance to impregnate a few white girls?
If you would sacrifice a White child to kill two Black children, you’re not so much pro-White anymore as you are anti-black.
We would be primarily sacrificing our Honey Booboo and Mandy Binx types. Maybe even a few Rachel Dolezals.
2 birds with one stone.
Sparta tried to breed supermen via infanticide and eugenics. It didn’t work. In 479 at the battle of Platea the Spartans had 5,000 warriors by Leuctra in 370 they had 1,000. That is a massive 80% lose of manpower. Yup killing your own works real well.
Also failed Marxist appeals to technology won’t help either. If technology won’t save central planning of an economy it obviously won’t save central planning of human reproduction. A primmer on Hayek might be necessary here.
Our knowledge of genetics, statistics, evolution, and human development has grown quite a bit since 479.
“Our knowledge of genetics, statistics, evolution, and human development has grown quite a bit since 479.”
Same fallacious reasoning as a Marxist. Technology did not save central planning of consumer goods, it won’t save central planning of human reproduction.
Do you believe we should have policies to increase white fertility or decrease black fertility?
If so, you believe in central planning of human reproduction.
Among other things, Hitler’s Germany outlawed abortion as “racial sabotage,” closed down birth control clinics, punished women with up 5 years in prison for abortion, enacted a bachelor’s tax and reserved the death penalty for abortionists.
The Nazis were generally pro-life except in cases of herediary diseases or other communities like Jews who were encouraged to have abortions. The Lebensborn program was also pro-natalist.
It’s funny that Trump is being accused of wanting to punish women for getting abortions by American pro-lifers. That was Hitler’s position too. The Third Reich was successful in raising its birthrate.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fZ9iCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT59&lpg=PT59&dq=hitler+abortion+racial+sabotage&source=bl&ots=E7IQUuExzr&sig=GTGwr-2aC_0utFP-D2UJAMZZ8Dg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSwOTX7onMAhWETSYKHYmTCqUQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=hitler%20abortion%20racial%20sabotage&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=pS9w5A2Cp48C&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=hitler+abortion+racial+sabotage&source=bl&ots=q2ig4eTEoe&sig=oVMY8tj1D5ATBh-qlpdG05T6ScE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0oPCG74nMAhUJSCYKHQORAFQQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=hitler%20abortion%20racial%20sabotage&f=false
Yeah look, I don’t like abortion and you don’t either, but this is a fake issue. The GOP uses abortion to drum up votes, but they don’t do jack shit to end it. The House could defund planned parenthood right now, and Dr. Mabogo in the White House couldn’t stop them, but they won’t. Pick your battles. Abortion is not going to stop with the Lincoln Party and you know it. Lets stop helping these frauds use this as an issue since they don’t really intend to stop it.
I agree with you on Republicans and the pro-life movement milking the issue to perpetuate themselves.
It is not necessary to have legalized aborticide in order to have a eugenics program.
Positive eugenics – wisely choosing a mate, having 4 to 6 kids – would be uncontroversial, attract greater support, and would be much more practical and helpful than useless fantasies.
What must white folks do in a fast-changing world?
White people need to think more like Jews.
If power is all about demography, how come Jews have so much power? They are only 2% of the population.
The fact that only 2% can have such power goes to show that a people don’t need to be in the majority to wield power.
Same goes for Latin America. Whites make up the minority in most Latin American nations but they control most of everything, most of what counts.
Why? Cuz relative to mestizos and indigenes, white Latin elites in South America are more active about power in economics, culture, and politics. Even small number of actives will gain power over large number of passives.
Same with Jews in the US. Jews are so restless, tireless, and active. They don’t wait for elections. Sure, they support their favored candidates, but the thing is Jews have been gaining power even when their guys were out of electoral office.
Most Jews have been Democrats. From 1968 to 1992, the GOP won all the elections except the one in 1976 with Carter. But all during that time, Jews were gaining in power and influence while the many groups that supported the GOP were losing in power and influence.
So, instead of investing so much in elections and politics, white folks need to think like Jews — as they are headed for minority status in the future — and think of gaining power in different ways.
So, what is the Jewish way?
Active and energetic than passive and lackadaisical, like so many Nashville hillbilly types or Western cowboy types.
Jews think urban, even when they are in small towns. Even small town Jews thought big, which is why so many prominent Jews come from small towns than just big cities. Think of Bob Dylan.
Pro-intellectual culture. Get kids interested in books and ideas from young age.
Creative culture. Raise kids to appreciate arts and culture, thus planting the seeds for future participation in the culture war.
Love of history. The default of humanity is amnesia. Most people are naturally neither liberal nor conservative. They just care about the here-and-now conventionality and immediate pleasure. Jews have a combination of conservatism and liberalism. They conserve, remember, and cherish their past, heritage, and culture. But they also look for new ideas and possibilities. So, while most people are in amnesiac mode, Jews draw their power from conservatism(power of memory and preservation) and liberalism(power of adventure and discovery). Indeed, their deep sense of history informs their far vision of the future.
Morally righteous. Jews feel righteous due to history and spirituality. Whites need to favor narratives that make whites feel morally righteous, indeed morally superior to non-whites. No more ‘white guilt’.
Social networking and tribal identity. Jews have it. Jews talk about Jewish community, Israel, Zionism, and Holocaust. Jews feel tribalism as victims and victors.
Ceaseless, ruthless, and relentless attack on the enemy. Jews are always in Purge Mode. Jews love to purge, purge, and purge their enemies.
We must also be in purge mode. Fight fire with fire.
Art of deception. Saul Alinsky and the rest. Long March through the institutions. Trust among ourselves but deception for the enemy. Never ever be honest or honorable with the enemy. Use whatever means necessary. Even lie and cheat. They don’t deserve truth and integrity that should be reserved only for ourselves.
Always favor our interests over those of outsiders. If we do favors for others, let the favors come with strings attached. Never do favors without condition or return favors.
White folks have been giving Jews so much without getting anything in return. The only white gentiles who got something were cucks at Conservatism Inc., the collaborators.
So, all this stuff about “The GOP will never win again, and then white folks are finished” is just pathetic talk. If Jews who are 2% can have so much power despite all the electoral defeats of Jewish-heavy Democratic Party, then white gentiles can have power too without winning election. There are just a few power centers in society. Few institution and industries have so much power. Hollywood controls so much of culture. If white gentile rightists cannot take over such institutions, they need to develop counter-institutions and think-tanks.
Pro Whites are becoming more effective politically. Daily Stormer
and others are getting anti-Whites fired and ostracized. This is a huge step forward from discussing conspiracies and imagining perfect worlds on Stormfront.
If all you’re doing is commenting on news and voting once every four
years, you’re not part of the political process, you’re an observer.
Rebuttal time. This will probably be long, since the post was long, so I may break it up into multiple comments.
I am *not* arguing from a religious or morality standpoint or from a dystopian sci-fi version of how ruthless people *could* behave in the future.
I am not arguing that abortion on demand as we know it today could not be replaced with something much better if we were independent.
I am only making the case that abortion on demand as we know it today is a net win for us, both in terms of racial demographics, and in terms of white eugenics.
Hunter is quick to point out that the US has gotten browner since Roe v Wade. We all know this is because of the immigration act of 1965 and because browns just simply breed more recklessly than whites. This does *not* prove that abortion is not mitigating the problem. I concede that abortion alone is not enough for us to win, but I maintain that it is helping, and helping a lot. Black women are about 4 times as likely to abort as white women and Hispanic women are about 2.5 times as likely to abort as white women. If you concede that we are in a demographic war, that alone should be a very compelling argument.
Furthermore, I’m going to point out that The abortion count for white women as presented in all sources that I know of, only counts the race of the mother. We can take it as certain that many of these abortions are actually aborting mulatto rather than white babies. I have no way of proving what the rate of mulatto babies being aborted is, but we can be reasonably certain that it happens a lot. This means that the demographic benefit to whites is actually greater than what can be calculated using existing data.
Even if we assume 2 percent of White pregnancies ending in abortion are multiracial (Counter-Currents), there is still no “net win” over blacks from abortion.
Yes, there is a huge net win. If we sacrifice a few of our Honey Boo Boo type or bluehaired feminist type pregnancies in exchange for a HUGE reduction in brown fertility, that would be a huge win for us.
1.) I don’t think a White mother killing her own child is a “net win” for us, period. When you cross into that territory, you have ceased to be pro-White and have become anti-black.
2.) If you could have two black women abort their children, would you abort your own child?
3.) Killing 28 million Whites for the sake of killing 17.2 million blacks isn’t even a “net win.” Neither is killing 28 million Whites to kill 28 million non-Whites.
4.) If the “we’re being swamped” argument had any merit, then White America should have been in a demographic downward spiral in 1970 due to rapidly proliferating blacks. Instead, America was whiter than at any point in its history when abortion became legal.
To anyone who wants to argue that abortion is murdering babies, so that makes it the worst possible evil:
1) Please ponder whether whites would have ever achieved a white America in the first place if somebody had not been willing to kill Indian babies.
2) If it is always wrong to kill babies, then why was God OK with it when the Israelites genocided the their enemies?
Deut 7:1-5
Deut 20:16-18
1Sam 15:2-3
Or is it only ok when Jews do it?
3) Even if we are not shooting each other in the streets at this time, we are in a very real demographic race war, which is sure to manifest in bloody streets at some time in the future if left unchecked. If a full scale race war broke out tomorrow, how old would a brown kid have to be before it would be morally ok to shoot him? What about pregnant shegroes?
1.) Indians were such a small population that American settlers rarely killed Indian babies.
2.) Even today, the Catholic Church considers abortion a mortal sin.
3.) Suppose we are in a race war and 28 million Whites have died in the war and 17 million blacks have died on the other side. That’s a YUGE net win for us?
#3) YES! If we sacrifice a small percentage while our enemy loses hand over fist, then YES THAT IS A HUGE NET WIN FOR US!
I suppose you want to win wars where we don’t suffer any casualties at all? To my knowledge that’s unprecedented in human history (unless you count the bible story where the Israelites’ enemy started fighting themselves). Maybe it has happened elsewhere, but I’m not holding my breathe for a war where we suffer zero casualties. Are you?
1.) Again, I say it is not “pro-White.” At that point, it is anti-black.
2.) When you try to justify White parents killing their own children, you have come full circle and have completely repudiated the foundation of our own cause which is our responsibility to future generations. That’s just the way I see it.
3.) Again, 28 million Whites dying for the sake of killing 17 million blacks isn’t even a “winning” scenario.
1a.) As long as we are in a race war, to be on my side is to be against my enemy.
1b.) Race wars are constant. Human tribes are biological competitors on this planet and always will be. Humanity has always been in race wars and always will be. It began when the first tribe of homo sapiens split into 2 tribes and will continue for as long as humans exist. The only decision we have to make is which side we are routing for. I’m routing for team white, specifically team Southerners.
1.) If the result of 40 years of abortion is 28 million dead Whites and Whites falling under 50% of total births, then we lost the race war.
2.) The black birthrate is below replacement level too. If Whites weren’t such moral degenerates, they wouldn’t be losing the “race war” in the nursery.
1.) This is not the result of abortion, but the result of immigration and welfare subsidized breeding and does not refute the fact that abortion is mitigating the problem.
2a.) That’s good news! I’m glad to hear you provide this wonderful testimony to how well abortion is working for us! We should subsidize it with government funds to speed things up! (Though doing it through birth control would be morally superior in my opinion.)
2b.) What does this have to do with the argument?
If there were no liberals, we wouldn’t be fighting liberalism.
If there were no muslims, we wouldn’t have to fight Islam.
If there had been no Civil war, the South wouldn’t have lost 300K able-bodied, able-minded men.
What’s your point?
2.) I am not trying to justify whites killing their own babies. (Though it wouldn’t be too hard to make the case, even if we lived in an all white country.) I am acknowledging that that is a cost that we pay in our demographic war given the options on the table today. It is possible that morally superior options could come on the table in the future, but that is not the case today.
3.) Not all 28 million were white. An unknown number of them were mulatto/mestizo or some other nonwhite race, like Middle Easterners or North Africans, that gets counted as white on the US census.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
1.) A baby isn’t a soldier.
2.) It is impossible to reconcile child sacrifice with Christianity.
3.) The people who are aborting their own children don’t even have noble motives.
4.) Doesn’t matter. Even if it is 25 million, that is still far more Whites being aborted than 17 million blacks.
1.) What kind of argument is this supposed to be? But you are right. It is much more expensive to our race for us to lose a soldier than a fetus.
2.) No, it’s not. I did it years ago. You might as well be saying “It’s impossible to reconcile racism with Christianity.”
Besides, you’re not going to argue from a religious standpoint, remember?
3.) Perfect. Selfish degenerates (at least on the abortion front) are weeding themselves from our race. How could we get any luckier?
4.) Please stop playing dumb on this. For a hypothetical example with easy math, let’s say there are 100 million whites and 13 million blacks in the US. If 13 million (disproportionally dumb and degenerate) whites and 13 million blacks died killing each other, WE WOULD GET A NEGRO FREE COUNTRY. THAT IS A HUGE WIN.
1.) An unborn child isn’t a soldier in a military conflict and therefore it isn’t a good analogy?
2.) I’m just saying … if you are a Christian who believes in child sacrifice, there aren’t many Christians anywhere who will agree with you on that.
3.) Looking at the precious snowflakes that are young people today, I don’t see us getting stronger. Quite the opposite. We are growing weaker over time.
4.) Ask yourself dear reader: after 55.7 million abortions, are we even an inch closer to a negro free country? Of course not. That will never happen because abortions are a fraction of total births. Instead, we just have a bloody mess on our hands with blacks hovering around their traditional share of the American population.
Your comments are getting weaker and more desperate.
1.) It’s a very good analogy and you know it. We are in a demographic war and wars aren’t pretty. Sorry about that.
2.) Would it be morally superior to replace it with adult sacrifice? Because that’s what the alternative is. It is certainly more pragmatic for our race to sacrifice quantity x of fetuses of unknown genetic merit that to sacrifice the same quantity x of grown men, mentally and physically capable of combat and patriotic, with sense of duty enough to rise to the occasion.
3) Yes, we have been growing weaker, but that is because of immigration, degeneracy, and the welfare farm, not because of abortion.
4.) ” after 55.7 million abortions, are we even an inch closer to a negro free country? Of course not. That will never happen because abortions are a fraction of total births.”
You just conceded a couple comments down about an hour ago, that the black birth rate is below replacement and now you turn around and say this. INCREDIBLE. Doesn’t it embarrass you to contradict yourself like that?
1.) No, I don’t.
I know our ancestors would have retched at the idea of child sacrifice and certainly never considered unborn children to be soldiers. Fathers are supposed to protect their families, not murder their own sons and daughters.
2.) Why not just ban abortion and have more children? Oh wait, that wouldn’t do anything about the White underclass enemy.
3.) Like gay marriage, homosexuality, nihilism, miscegenation and other perversions, abortion flourishes in a degenerate culture that has given up on the future.
4.) Umm, no.
Black abortions are outnumbered by black births. That’s why you will never abort away the black race. It is a fevered race war fantasy – after 17 million abortions and 40 years of trying, the black population in America is at its historical norm.
1) It’s still true. It doesn’t matter whether our ancestors considered fetuses (actually blastocysts or embryos in most cases) to be soldiers or not. The data prove that browns get abortion at a much higher rate than whites, so in terms of winning or losing the demographic race war, abortion is helping us by mitigating the problem.
2) Because abortion is a net win for us. see #1
3) Yes, but abortion mitigates the degenerate culture on about an 18 year lag time. (Crime decline in 1991 is a good example.)
4) Yes, you did say that. You said “The black birthrate is below replacement level too.”
You said it right here:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2016/04/12/the-pro-choice-temptation/#comment-2620926458
Besides, you don’t have to be able to abort them all away to prove it is a net win. For abortion to be a net win, you only have to prove that blacks are getting abortions at a much higher rate than whites are.
1.) So you admit that they did. Good. What if the Indians were a much larger population, like the brown population of America today? If independent, it is possible that we could force sterilization or deportation, but you can’t deny that abortion helps at this time while we have no other options on the table.
2.) Sorry. I forgot that I had already promised not to make a religious argument.
I deny that abortion has worked. It is not true. I don’t care if you grant that 20 percent of all White abortions are multiracial which is highly unlikely. Even then, it still isn’t true that more blacks have been aborted than Whites.
But they are aborted at a MUCH HIGHER RATE!
As the child bearing population approaches 50:50 white:nonwhite we will see that brown abortions outnumber white abortions by a large margin.
Yeah, but there are 17 million dead bodies in the black side, and around 28 million on our side.
Translation:
Despite having it pointed out to me multiple times, I refuse to acknowledge the difference between absolute numbers and rates. I refuse to acknowledge that many of the “white abortions” are mullato, north Africa, or Middle Eastern. I refuse to acknowledge that lower quality whites have a higher abortion rate than high quality whites.
‘If it is always wrong to kill babies, then why was God OK with it when the Israelites genocided the their enemies?
1Sam 15:2-3 ‘3 “Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don’t have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys.”
Or is it only ok when Jews do it?’
Good questions. The God of the bible had no problem with people killing babies. Commanded them to in fact.
Seems appropriate:
“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.”
– Leviticus 18:21
I promise not to sacrifice any of my children to Molech, and I promise not to abort any, except possibly in the unlikely event of a prenatally diagnosed severe congenital defect. But whether I like it or not, some of them could get sacrificed in national defense. So could yours, even if they don’t volunteer.
Among other things, the Bible is right that child sacrifice is immoral. Christianity holds that killing your own child is one of the greatest, most unforgivable evils.
The fact is, we would be far better off taking the Bible’s advice which is “be fruitful and multiply” and condemning homosexuality and other things that would actually turn around our demographic decline.
We’re not killing our kids–Our enemies are killing theirs. Please, let’s stay out of their way on at least this one front!
Also, we should stay out of their way when it comes to Obamacare funded birth control. If there is one thing the government should subsidize, it should be birth control for negroes and white underclass.
1.) First, I wouldn’t describe young White women in their twenties as our “enemies.”
2.) Second, I wouldn’t describe their unborn children as our “enemies.”
3.) Third, birth control is unquestionably the single biggest factor in bringing about present demographic crisis.
4.) Fourth, as I said above, there are some eugenicists who believe White working class children don’t even deserve to live.
1.) Brown and underclass whites are our demographic enemies no matter what their sex is.
2.) Their unborn children are in direct competition with your children at the ballotbox, which translates to more welfare for them, higher taxes for your kids. And some day soon enough they will surely bite the hand that feeds them.
Whether you admit it or not, they are your kids biological competitors and enemies, and surely to turn hostile to your kids as soon as they start feeling their power a little bit.
3.) Nope. I’d say immigration and the welfare farm both have more to do with the demographic crisis than birth control.
4.) So. “There are some x who believe y.” is a terrible argument. Example: “There are some cuckChristians who believe in adopting babies from Africa.” Does that mean I should reject Christianity?
1.) Okay, the White underclass is the “enemy” now.
2.) How many people who read this blog and comment here have liberal parents? All of you should have been aborted! You are the enemy!
3.) Immigration wouldn’t be having close to the demographic impact it is having now if Whites had the same birthrate they had in the 1920s. Birth control is the single biggest factor in White demographic decline worldwide.
4.) I’ve never met a Christian who supports the concept of child sacrifice. I will ask around though.
1) See my comment here:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2016/04/12/the-pro-choice-temptation/#comment-2621073787
We all know that there are some whites who might as well be black. They’re not helping us out as a race any more than libtard whites are.
2) I don’t know and don’t care. I was talking about the brown hordes when I said it anyway.
3) I’m arguing about abortion and you are changing the subject to birth control. Also, immigration is a completely separate issue from abortion. It is not tied to any bortion legislation in the form of rider bills so there’s no reason to put them together here.
4) What does this have to do with my point? I guess you just wanted to use the term “child sacrifice”? Anyway, we’re talking about whether abortion is a net gain for us, not making a moral/religious argument, Right?
BOOOOOOOOO
I just got around to the AIDS/Skrillex post. The kids in those videos are a perfect example of why we need legal abortion. Who do you think is most likely to get an abortion? The girl in the video? Or Jessa Duggar?
One has to wonder what Jefferson Davis would think of “Prez Davis”.
He believed in sacrificing able bodied, able minded Southern men to kill Yankees in a war for political independence.
Would he not approve of sacrificing Southern lives of unknown (but generally below avg) merit to kill browns in a war for our very existence?
Is abortion a worse way to die than from weeks of gangrene from a battle injury?
I’m an African race realist and I am pro-choice for practical reasons. Legalized abortion means fewer black babies which leads to less crime, less welfare dependency, less substance abuse, etc. It’s unfortunate that some white babies must be sacrificed though.
This article reminded me of a comment I found on an American Renaissance article on abortion. “Half of black pregnancies end up being aborted. Without legalized abortion, there would be twice as many blacks in the U.S. I thank God each and every day that those blacks were never born.”
And don’t forget they only record the race of the mother, so many of those “white” babies will actually be mulatto. Plus it’s pretty certain that the majority of white abortions are not exactly the cream of the crop from our race.
1.) The fact that over half of mothers who have abortions are college educated refutes this.
2.) 2 percent of White abortions would be around 500,000. Even 20 percent which is incredibly unlikely would be around 5 million. No matter how much so many people want to believe otherwise total black abortions are far outnumbered by White abortions.
1.) No it doesn’t. Stop lying…or take a statistics class.
2a.) Don’t forget, in addition to mulatto babies to white mothers, they are including North African and Middle Easterner women as whites.
2b.) It’s primarily the underclass whites that are getting abortions. Underclass whites are much more likely to end up with unwanted pregnancy than the general population. The fact that blacks have the highest rate, Hispanics next, then whites tells us that abortion is a scourge of the genetic underclass. Very few of those white women seeking abortion will be quality white women. The argument that a lot of these occur to university students means little since universities are a haven for freaks and every flavor of degenerate imaginable. Also consider that more girls go to college than boys, so that’s going to skew results.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/
1.) Eugenicists cling to the myth that we are aborting the refuse of our race. I’m not sure what else to call it. Mothers who give birth to children are less educated than the ones who are having abortions. This is due to the tendency of college educated and affluent women to abort unwanted pregnancies.
2.) Feel free to throw those in too. It still doesn’t come anywhere close to a “net victory” over blacks. Whether it is 28 million or 25 million or 23 million, we are still aborting far more White than black babies.
Just curious what mental gymnastics goes on in the mind of a person that accepts animals can be bread for certain traits,but humans not? How do you rationalize it?
I agree that humans can be bred for certain traits.
Why on earth would we want to do that though? Should we treat our own people like livestock? Eugenicists claim that banning abortion is impractical, but is it really compared to any of the shit that they are proposing?
We’ve bred all kinds of species for certain characteristics we find desirable. In the process, we have made them weaker, dependent, more docile and inferior to their wild counterparts in most cases.
I would like to breed the suicidal traits out them. Then we can stop wasting time on stupid politics and get on with advancing as a people.
Do you really believe that Whites are becoming less suicidal because of abortion? If so, why does our culture seem to be growing crazier and crazier every year?
Did you read the story about the Norwegian guy who was thankful a Somalian refugee ass raped him and was sorry he was sent home?
Yeah I saw that. I think its genetic in their case. Blond blue eyed people look nice and have high IQ, but have no sense of self preservation.
In their case they were protected by geography. People living on the borderlands of Europe are more sensible, because they’ve always had to fight to keep invaders out.
“I agree that humans can be bred for certain traits.
Why on earth would we want to do that though?”
You have got to be kidding.
If we could have independence, in a 100% Southern white ethnostate tomorrow, do you think we should prefer to set it up where:
–the above avg IQs outbreed the below avg IQs
–the physically strong and healthy outbreed the physically weak
–the sane and wholesome outbreed the insane and degenerate
–the honest outbreed the dishonest
–the patriots outbreed the traitors
–the generous, cooperative outbreed the selfish noncooperators
–the beautiful outbreed the fugly (Heaven’s forbid, what a nightmare!)
or do you prefer the opposite come true?
Europeans have for millennia been inefficiently, yet slowly and surely breeding as I have described, though the past 100 years or so has taken a 180 and is in a tailspin. It is not too late for us to do something about it. In fact, we can improve our race very fast, and much more humanely than Nature has done in the past.
It takes an unusually cruel person to think hard and really redpill on eugenics, then turn the other way. To say no to eugenics is to say yes to dysgenics and a future Idiocracy. Maybe God could forgive him, but it would be pretty hard for me.
It is foolish to say “We are trying to make whites a master race.” because nature (perhaps by the intervention of God) has already made us a master race. We have already inherited that status. We are not buying genetic lottery tickets, our race has already won the genetic lottery. Do you want to throw it away or keep it? What about investing it wisely to make it grow?
Speaking of winning the genetic lottery as a race reminded me of Cecil Rhodes. What could be more encouraging. If he knew what we know now, I doubt he would disagree with my long comment above.
1.) Virtually everyone I know who is a Southern Nationalist would quit tomorrow if creating a “Southern ethnostate” meant building our children like a custom-made Buick or engaging in a practice as evil as child sacrifice.
2.) The last thing we need after rejecting the common sense found in the Bible, which would quickly reverse our demographic decline, is to compound that mistake with a crackpot eugenics program.
3.) Eugenics can be more accurately described as a black pill that will cause anyone who takes it to throw away what made them a nationalist in the first place.
1a) We’re not talking about “designer babies” here and you know it. We’re talking about setting up our laws (hopefully constitutionally) so that our better men and women outbreed our ne’er do wells. It’s hard to imagine that anybody could deny that principle, but if they do, they are just asking for society to grow more pozzed than it has become–thanks to liberals who deny the reality of genetics.
1b) I am not arguing that we will need to keep the abortion mills running at full steam in our new ethnostate (but it sure would help if we could abort brown babies at full capacity).
If we had our independence, we could cut down on the demand for abortion in the first place. I do believe there are other options morally superior to abortion, but those options are probably not going to come at our disposal until we are independent.
If we were Independent, other options might include:
–requiring that brown raced individuals either get sterilized or leave the country.
–requiring that any woman seeking welfare get sterilized, IUD, or hormonal implant BEFORE SHE CAN GET ANY GOV MONEY.
–requiring that deadbeat fathers get vasectomies
–keeping criminals locked up longer, and without conjugal visits
–banning international/interracial adoptions and encouraging subfertile couples to use IVF, sperm donors, egg donors, or surrogate mothers, where sperm/egg donors have to meet minimum standards. These cases would probably never exceed 5% of births, but it would probably still be a good enough program to consider a government subsidy.
–bringing back patriarchal government and culture. I support constitutionally limiting voters, congress, govs, lieutenant govs, prez, vp, secretary of state, secretary treasurer, secretary of defense, high ranks in military, high ranks in highway patrol, sheriffs, mayors, and judges/justices to (biologically) men only. I strongly suspect that restoring an unapologetically patriarchal culture will automatically encourage young men to go ahead and marry, reduce the number of sexless marriages, reduce the divorce rate, and increase broodiness.
But it’s unlikely that we can accomplish any of these things until we are independent. Though there is a chance that since welfare is administered at the state level, we might be able to accomplish requiring birth control in exchange for ebt cards.
This list is just something that I have been able to come up with, though I’m certainly not the first person to advocate for welfare in exchange for sterilization. I believe wholeheartedly that some serious thinking, patriotic Southerners could come up with many other options that either complement these or even replace with something better. But if you are going to assert the liberal dogma that “Eugenics is the Devil” then we might as well eat drink, be merry and not bother with independence–just drink up and accept our demise.
1.) All the Southern Nationalists who I know are motivated by a desire to preserve and protect our folk community. Every single one of them to a man is repulsed by child sacrifice and the concept of killing off members of our nation because they are unworthy of life.
2.) Again, I don’t know many Southern Nationalists who think that mothers murdering their own children is either a good idea or a practice we would want to continue.
3.) Nothing is more offensive to a “patriachical culture” than women killing their own children or fathers aborting their own sons because they are irresponsible and feel like doing it.
4.) Eugenicists don’t have any need for either nation or the family and happily dispense with both to further their aims.
5.) Seeing how you believe the White underclass is the enemy, why do you even call yourself pro-White?
1.) Just because an image is repulsive doesn’t mean it is not best for our people. I suppose many colonial men were repulsed at the sight of dead Indians (and the white casualties of Indian war) but they went ahead with the Indian wars anyway and we are better for it today. Too bad the politicians are importing Indians from Mexico to replace them, but I digress.
Many pet owners are repulsed at the thought of euthanizing their pets, but they judge it to be the best option anyway and go ahead with it based on reason rather than visceral reaction. Understandably, many pet owners don’t want to watch the process, or if they choose to attend obviously do not enjoy taking part.
2) Well, you at least know me online, and I’m far from the only one. BTW, are Klansmen Southern Nationalists?
3) Abortion is the caboose, liberalism (including both propaganda and genetics) is the locomotive.
4) I’m a eugenicist for the sake of my nation. Besides this is the ….wait for it…Genetic Fallacy! You are asserting the false premise that eugenicists are evil, and implying that whatever ideas they come up with must necessarily be bad for Southerners. Is it evil to limit immigration to whites only? Because that would be a eugenics practice.
5) Why have we historically executed or incarcerated white criminals? Was it not judged to be for the good of society as a whole? Why were Bonnie and Clyde killed? Were they not Southern whites who could have made white babies? Shouldn’t they all get a free pass just for being white? Bill Clinton is a Southerner, so I guess we should all vote for Billary 2016, Right? I mean as long as Bill is a Southerner, that means he’s on our side, Right?
BTW, I listed several eugenics practices above that could be implemented if we were independent. Do you disapprove of all of them on the grounds that they are eugenics practices?
I don’t accept that college educated people are the cream of our race. They all seem to lack common sense.
College education would indicate higher intelligence, but I agree, the smartest people are usually the ones who end up believing the dumbest things. It takes a high degree of intelligence to ignore what is hidden in plain sight.
The real permanent solution to America’s woes would be taking all the dumb WV hicks Prez Davis wants aborted, and having them migrate to Yankeedom. In a few generations pretentious progressivism will end and hearty redneckery ensue.
1a) It’s true–no question about it. Data has been collected over the years and it is overwhelmingly true. Before 1973, we could only talk about hypotheses, but the experiment has been running for a long time and the body of evidence is overwhelming.
1b) I already addressed this in under the other post on April 08. If you wanna recycle arguments, I’m gonna start recycling my rebuttals. Here it is:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2016/04/08/the-alt-right-and-abortion/#comment-2614127228
2a) Recycled argument gets you a recycled rebuttal:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2016/04/12/the-pro-choice-temptation/#comment-2620791893
Then where is the data?
I just checked. I used to be able to easily find it in PDF form straight from CDC (back when I was sorting out my views on abortion) but they seem to have hidden it for some reason. Here it is from Guttmacher. Eat your heart out.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf
Just considering Blacks, Hispanic and whites, blacks have the highest abortion rate, followed by Hispanic, then whites. Doesn’t that tell us a lot about what kind of people get abortions at the highest rate?
If we had some way to split whites into “above average genetic endowment” and “below average genetic endowment” where do you think they would fall?
Do you think it would be:
black>Hispanic>above avg white>below avg white
or do you think it would be:
black>Hispanic>below avg white>above avg white
I know which one I’m betting on.
“But, but but, college students getting abortions!”
College students like these are probably getting the majority of those college abortions. Are they our future?
http://emorywheel.com/emory-students-express-discontent-with-administrative-response-to-trump-chalkings/
Or maybe it’s the white tramps that get banged by negroes on spring break in Cancun. Are they the college abortions you’re worried about?
“But, but, but Upper class abortions!”
Hillary is in the upper class. Maybe she’s had a couple. I wonder how many Rachel Madcow or Debbie Wasserman Shultz have had. Do we need more of these women?
Do you think the Robertsons from Duck Dynasty are getting the upper class abortions? What about The Cathy family that owns Chick fil A? Are they getting the upper class abortions?
It should be clear to anyone at this point following this exchange how easily eugenicists cast aside literally everything that makes anyone pro-White.
I might as well be arguing with Bill Maher or Chris Matthews here. What have I cast aside that makes me pro-white?
I gave a thorough well reasoned comment and even linked to the data you asked for. Instead of conceding that I provided the data you challenged me on, you come up with this nonsense reply. Why not be like Rachel Madcow and just shout that I’m a racist bigot, and mobilize your coterie to chime in against me.
You have even resorted to using the word “literally” when obviously it is not true. It appears your liberal streak is shining through. Am I “literally Hitler” also?
1.) Sorry, but I don’t believe the White working class is the enemy, or their children are unworthy of life. That’s where eugenicists want to take this, however.
2.) Because the thought never crossed my mind. You seem to be focused on killing White people and judging which White children are worthy of life and designating entire classes as the enemy.
3.) Of course not.
Hitler certainly didn’t believe in abortion on demand. Quite the opposite. It was a capital offense to assist a woman in getting an abortion under the Third Reich. Women who illegally got abortions were imprisoned for up to five years in Hitler’s Germany.
1) You spelled “welfare class” wrong.
3) If Hitler were such a great strategist, Germany could have carried on it’s eugenics program without getting smashed in WWII.
Why should anyone trust any statistics from the very people who are pushing abortions? Confirmation bias anyone?
I am a convert. I used to be antiabortion until I took the time to study the data on my own time. I believe legal abortion is a net positive because of the data, not the other way around.
The data you researched was published by people who are pro-abortion. They made the data to fit their pre-existing biases.
When I was researching my views I used CDC data but they have either taken it down or conveniently buried it since then.
So where am I supposed to get the data from? What source that you approve of has abortion rate broken down by race?
I finally found the CDC data and linked to it. Please see my new comment here:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2016/04/12/the-pro-choice-temptation/#comment-2623745158
Hunter said:
“Leftists Are Aborting Their Children
This is one of the dumbest arguments out there: liberals are aborting their children, therefore conservatives are winning the demographic battle.”
No it’s quite probable, but I’m not sure how to verify. I don’t know what’s supposed to be so dumb about it. Why wouldn’t I expect a libtard or nihilist to be more likely to abort an unwanted pregnancy than a conservative Christian?
Hunter said:
“The people who are making this self-serving argument are just pro-abortion. They don’t really believe it themselves. Political ideology isn’t a heritable characteristic. Progressives aren’t genetically transmitting their ideology to their children.”
One’s predisposition for liberalism most certainly is heritable. Almost anything is heritable, so I don’t know why this would be any different. Oh, look! At least one gene has been identified:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm
Oh, here’s another discovery, and they even have a name for the disease!
http://witscience.org/liberalism-caused-defective-chromosome/
Hunter said:
“Even in the Deep South, most White people believe that miscegenation should be legal in 2016, the sight of which provoked lynch mobs two generations ago. Public opinion on gay marriage is also rapidly shifting here because of the power of the media.”
I’m not going to deny the damage done by the propaganda mills, but it is foolish to think this refutes the genetic argument. Nobody who believes in eugenics believes that genetics makes *all* the difference, but genetics deniers deny that genetics makes *any* difference.
Agree on genetics and predisposition.
There’s a difference between grudgingly going along
with something, because you think you have to and enthusiasts that are immune to facts, attend rallies
and shout “You’re a White male!” The second group are the enforcers. Propaganda is powerful, but people can only be subverted if they want to be.
1.) The plague of SJW Millennials suggests otherwise combined with the biological absurdity that political ideology is inherited.
2.) Sure it does.
If our political beliefs are inherited from our ancestors, then we should have been inoculated against gay marriage, homosexuality, miscegenation, gender confusion, multiculturalism and a thousand other things that were taboo in the Jim Crow South.
3.) The whole country has become radically more liberal after 55 million abortions.
Are you seriously saying abortions created liberalism?
Of course not.
I’m arguing against the notion that abortion is making us “more conservative” by aborting the children of liberal parents. It is not true.
Yes, it is true, or at least it is mitigating the damage done by the propaganda mills. How could it not be true?
Because there is no evidence it is true? We’re at the point now where North Carolina can barely keep trannies out of women’s restrooms.
Big business is strong arming them. The majority don’t want it.
Liberals are more abortionhappy than conservatives. That means abortion is working for us politically, even if we just look at whites. It would absolutely be worse if abortion had not passed in Roe v Wade.
This is absurd.
After 57 million abortions, we have conserved nothing and the country has grown radically more liberal.
Yes, but we would be in worse shape without having Roe v Wade. I’ve made this point repeatedly.
All you have to do is answer this question:
Do quality women get abortions at a higher rate than low quality women, or is it the other way around?
I answered this in my initial post: highly educated and affluent women are much more likely to terminate unwanted pregnancies in abortion.
I already rebutted you on this (twice) over at Radix, but you ignored it both times and are recycling the argument here. I’m going to paste my recycled reply:
Affluent women are less likely to experience an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. To be objective and fair, you’d have to compare the percent reduction in the fertility rates of the 2 classes, i.e. number of abortions per 1,000 live births between the 2 classes. Furthermore, it is more likely that a baby aborted by an affluent white woman will be aborted bc of a congenital defect (because more affluent women are more likely to wait until they are older to have kids and are more likely to get screening procedures done).
I’ve already cited these articles twice but I’ll cite them again here.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm
http://witscience.org/liberalism-caused-defective-chromosome/
It’s pretty ridiculous to argue that liberalism is not hereditary when at least 3 relevant genes have already been identified and named. It’s hard to get more conclusive proof than that. You might as well say “No evidence eye color is heritable.”
Comparing political ideology to a simple Mendelian trait like eye color is even more crackpot.
a) Dude, you sound like a Leftist. Comparing one thing to another is not saying that the two things are identical. I am not claiming that liberalism is 100% Mendelian, I am claiming just what I said, that when you deny that liberalism (or at least that the susceptibility to liberalism is hereditary, you might as well say “no evidence eye color is heritable.”
b) So I’ve presented you with at least 3 genes that in some way, directly or indirectly, code for liberalism, and you still deny that it’s (at least in part) hereditary. Amirite? Are you actually that willing to look like a fool on your own blog? Doubling down after I’ve presented you with some genes that have been discovered to code for it really isn’t a good strategy.
c) To avoid looking like a fool on your own blog, it would be a good idea to say something like “Wow, so they’ve actually named genes that code for it. I didn’t know that. I’ll take the time to look into it.”
“The plague of SJW Millennials suggests otherwise combined with the biological absurdity that political ideology is inherited.”
Political ideology, or at least the inclination toward an ideology is certainly heritable.
http://witscience.org/liberalism-caused-defective-chromosome/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm
Again, almost everything has a heritable component. Mental illnesses, susceptibility to alcoholism, temperaments just to name a few.
1.) Just look at Europe. Monarchy and Christianity was so heritable there! National Socialism was heritable too. And communism!
2.) Far from political ideology being heritable, we have picked up one insane idea after another while jettisoning one traditional value after another in the South. Look no further than our women and how they carry themselves today. Look at what they believed compared to their grandmothers.
3.) It is a crackpot idea that the country is becoming “more conservative” because of abortion. After 57 million abortions, exactly the opposite has happened.
1a) Monarchy, even if only in the form of a tribal chief, was the standard around the world since time immemorial. Democratic forms of government arose as European invention, both in ancient Rome and in USA.
I suspect there is a strong racial/heritable component.
1b) A population’s inclination toward socialism or communism seems to have a strong hereditary component too. In fact the rise of communism is credited to a certain tribe.
3) You’re being silly here. I already conceded that abortion alone has not been enough to stop the leftward march, especially while the Left imports new voters hand over fist, but it has obviously been helpful. Of course I could always point out that the generic altright is rising now, after a couple generations of liberal abortion. Why now and not in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s?
“If you were to hire a hit man to kill your neighbor, would you be committing murder?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“Because I’d intentionally be killing a human being. That’s murder.”
“If you procure the service of an abortionist, to kill the fetus that’s growing inside you, right now, you’ll be doing the same thing.”
“No, I won’t.”
“Yes, you will. That fetus is a human being. There’s no difference.”
“That’s easy for you to say.”
The so-called pro-life movement should bring itself to an end.
If the quick bit of Googling I’ve just done has turned up reliable information, Mr. W., the fetal parts that lie on the coin in the photograph that’s part of your post are from an abortion carried out at nine weeks, which is to say an abortion that was not a crime at common law. Throughout centuries in which the English rose and spread to greatness, in what became Dixie and elsewhere, abortions carried out at that early point–and even quite a bit later–were not crimes. For all we know, Betsy Ross had a nine-week abortion, the same week she made the first American flag.
I’m not the one who has to explain that. God is–but as maybe you’ve noticed, he isn’t real big on explaining.
One of the hands (or is it a foot) isn’t even distinguishable from a flipper yet. Arms, wrists and hands; legs, ankles and feet evolved from flippers and it’s incredibly apparent at early stages of development. There were probably some tails present that they could have included in the pic, but I doubt showing pictures of “baby tails” would have furthered their activist goal.
Plus, the Supreme Court is now packed with Harvard and Yale judges 44% New York City area Jewish judges. Abortion rights ain’t going to be overturned any time soon, or ever.
That’s just life – same as White Rhodesia, the pre 1965 all White SEC football ain’t coming back.
Just need to accept reality and do what is possible.
Promote “pro life” in ways like paying free rent to (implicit) White college girls who get pregnant. Promote other types of birth control besides abortion to underclass communities that are mostly non White. Abortion is dangerous, shots of birth control medicine is much safer.
Also lots of things that appear to be 100% bad like bad Leftist Afro Centric college professors, there’s a silver lining – these Black Feminists Leftist PC college professors ain’t having any children – who wants to mate, hang around with these types?
Defenseless human beings. http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6415192.ece/ALTERNATES/s1023/Moroccan-tribute-to-Aylan-Kurdi.jpg
I am almost ready to write off radix. Abortion is murder. A particularly sickening version in which mothers butcher their babies before they see the light of day.
It’s all about who is getting the abortions. It’s mostly PoC and libtards. Very few quality white women are getting abortions. Hunter and I have been arguing this ad nauseam below.
Yeah. I saw that. I still don’t agree with it. Murder is wrong, white OR black.
In that case it would be immoral for us to ever win a war. We should just submit to whatever our enemies demand, because it would be wrong to kill them.
I know you don’t believe in good and evil, but to us there’s a difference between an innocent baby and an enemy combatant in a just war.
I do believe in good and evil. I am a Christian.
Whether it’s an officially declared war, we are in one nonetheless. Not all warfare takes place on the battlefield. Some of it takes place in the media, and the womb certainly wouldn’t be off limits to the enemy if the statistics were reversed.
Update: I finally found the CDC data that I was looking for. I don’t know if they intentionally buried the info or not, but it’s no longer available in pdf (unless you create the pdf yourself) and you have to click through a few pages to get to it rather than just googling “abortion statistics by race” like I used to be able to do.
Also, they used to have it available in charts ranging from 1973 til latest available, so you could see how the trends changed over time. Anyway, you can find the relevant data from CDC in table 12 here:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e#tab12
As you can see in Hunter’s home state of Alabama in 2012:
white women got 2,703 abortions
black women got 4,406 abortions
Hispanic women got 1,747 abortions
“other” women got 168 abortions
Based on this data, that means in 2012 in Alabama, there were 6,321 PoC abortions compared to 2,703 abortions to white women, or about 2.3 PoC babies aborted for every 1 white baby that got aborted.
But wait, there’s more!
These figures only include the race of the mother–not the race of the baby, so it’s safe to assume that a lot of those “white” abortions were actually mulatto babies.
Even more!
Based on the trend that black>Hispanic>white we can pretty safely predict that the white women getting abortions are going to lean heavily toward drug addicted, welfaritis whites than quality white women. If we had a way to measure which white women were getting abortions, it’s safe to say we’d end up with something like this:
black>Hispanic>degenerate, mudsharking white>wholesome, quality white.
Based on the data alone, I think we can confidently say that abortion is doing a good work in cleaning up Alabama and other states. We can take it for certain that the present brownification of the South is not due to abortion, but mitigated by abortion.
If you throw in the mudsharking, welfaritis, drug addicted and other degenerate whites in with the PoC that we need to get rid of, then it is unlikely we would ever be able to achieve these kinds of numbers in some kind of civil unrest/race war on our own turf with the likely interference from a substantial portion of whites who thought they were doing God’s work by siding with the brown hordes against us.
So what should Southern Nationalists do?
Southern Nationalists should worry less about defeating Roe v Wade and more about other strategic fronts (like immigration, discouraging mudsharking, recruiting newcomers, growing the movement intellectually, etc) of the race war we were born into. If we want to replace abortion with something better (like sterilization) after we have achieved independence, then that will be fine, but for now, it’s the luckiest break we’re likely to get any time soon!
“Here’s what the eugenicists don’t tell you: there were considerably more abortions in the 1980s and 1990s than there are today. The US abortion rate is now at its lowest rate since 1973. The eugenicists will happily point out that, today, White women have 36% of abortions. They don’t tell you that black and Hispanic abortions have surged in recent decades because so many fewer White women are getting them. When abortion was at its peak in the 1980s, it was White women who were getting 2/3rds of abortions.
A generation ago, the overwhelming majority of babies who were aborted were White. Abortion didn’t save us. If anything, it might have accelerated our decline by killing off so many White Millennials.” um no evidence