White Children

I occassionally post these pics here from time to time.

My wife shares them all the time on Facebook. Anyway, this is a recent photo of my son having a great time doing little boy stuff. I named him after his grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great grandfather. And yes, he is perfectly healthy and will be 2-years-old in June.

For all the talk about the Nietzschean superman on the internet, the point is rarely made that you probably don’t have time to wait for it. It wasn’t possible a decade ago when I was 26 and reading up on liberal eugenics. None of this science fiction shit was even possible two years ago when my son was born either. It won’t be for a long time.

I plan on having at least three more children. Fortunately, my wife is only 26 so that is doable. Even so, I don’t want to be having children well into my forties, so we plan to get started on our second child very soon. I assume none of the things we have spent so much time discussing over the past week will be even close to being here in the next five years.

Let’s be serious: you don’t have all the time in the world to have children. If you are a woman, you know this better than anyone. If you are a man, your chances of attracting and having children with a younger woman fade over time. The clock is ticking for you too.

This is ultimately a big divisive debate over nothing. None of the things promised by liberal eugenics are going to happen within your reproductive years. None of the fantasies of negative eugenics have a realistic chance of happening either – yes, there are Down Syndrome abortions – but the demographic impact of that is so small that it hardly justifies celebrating a touchdown in the endzone.

For you dear reader, it is “positive eugenics” or bust. You can either wisely choose a mate and have 4 to 6 children, which probably means you need to get started on it now, or you can argue about it on the internet until you are childless and alone in your forties and fifties. Maybe there will be lunar colonies in the 22nd century, but if you don’t have any children none of your descendants will be there, so …

My son isn’t the Übermensch, but he is still mine. When I am gone, I will live on through him and his descendants. That’s good enough for me. Quit waiting on the Übermensch and settle for a little you.

Note: I recently learned that my direct ancestor, Thomas Griffin, moved to Alabama in 1840 from Fayetteville, NC. He settled in Henry County, AL where he had 13 children. All 8 of his sons fought for the Confederacy including 2 who died in Virginia.

13 children … now that is a Nietzschean superman!


About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. While he is adorable, he is not what a first term fetus, that lacks a central nervous system and cannot even feel, looks like.

  2. Good on you, Brad. Sorry you haven’t talked about your personal life on this blog in a bit, but will the family grow some more? Do tell if good news. Your son will inherit Occidental Dissent and ours will post on it, good evening.

      • You’re in your mid 30s and have time, plus your lady is younger. I’m not parent yet, but it’s one of the key to happiness and I’m starting to worry about my older days, don’t want to end as a miserable loner. An occasional fling here and there won’t make me a dad.

  3. I guess when your antiabortion, antieugenics arguments fail, you can always post baby pics.
    Would you like for him to inherit a country with a much lower violent crime rate?
    Would you like for him to inherit a country with a very low welfare burden?
    Would you like for him to inherit a country with a very low disease burden?
    Would you like for him to inherit a strong military with very high IQ top generals, or will more average IQ generals do?
    Would you like for him to inherit a country where the doctors are very smart? Or are you happy for the avg IQ of doctors to go down from where it is now?
    Would you like for him to inherit a country with prostitutes on every smalltown street corner, or a country with very few prostitutes?
    If his country is to be democratic, what should the average IQ (on today’s scale) of the voting population be?

    • Hmm.

      I can’t think of any countries which have embraced abortion and which are either flourishing or sustainable. On the contrary, all of them seem to be in demographic decline and have embraced abortion amid the weakening of racial instincts and the triumph of other types of cultural decadence.

      • That doesn’t mean it’s the cause of the decline. I could just as easily say “I can’t think of any countries from the former British Empire which are either flourishing or sustainable.” Does that mean the Celtic race is inherently unsustainable?

        • It is a sympton of racial and cultural decline.

          It is important to remember why abortion was legalized in the 1970s. It was part of the Sexual Revolution and the triumph of feminism. The freedom to abort your own child is linked to the freedom to sleep with as many men as you want, the freedom to divorce your husband for any reason, the freedom to put your self above the interests of the community.

          • 1)”It is a sympton of racial and cultural decline.”

            Thank you for conceding that it is not the cause. Do you think treating the symptom will cure the disease? Or do you think treating the cause will cure the disease?

            2) “The freedom to abort your own child is linked to the freedom to sleep with as many men as you want, the freedom to divorce your husband for any reason, the freedom to put your self above the interests of the community.”

            Thank you for conceding that abortion is primarily associated with degenerates.

            Exactly the kind of genetics we should be weeding out of the population. As I have said many times, white abortions primarily consist of our most degenerate stock. Wholesome women are not affected by the option to abort.

          • 1.) I’ve already identified the disease: a culture that embraces the ethic of expressive individualism. Aborting your own child is one symptom of the disease. Importing millions of foreigners is another.

            Pretending you are a member of the opposite sex and demanding acceptance is another. Divorcing your spouse is another. Casual sex is another. Engaging in miscegenation is another. Gay marriage is another. Birth control is questionably the biggest one. And so on. It all stems from the ultimate cause which is the underlying worldview of radical individualism.

            I didn’t say it was the cause of our racial decline. I said it was one of the many symptoms of the underlying principle. And no, banning abortion by itself isn’t sufficient to solve the problem because it manifests in other ways.

            2.) It is symbolic in the message it sends: the freedom of the individual is so important that the individual, in this case the mother of the child, owes nothing whatsoever to the next generation.

            You are also wrong in assuming that everything is a genetic problem. A woman isn’t “degenerate stock” because she has been told her entire life that she has the inalienable right to abort her child if she feels like it.

          • 2a) I do not believe everything is a genetic problem. I have never claimed that genetics is the sole factor in who gets an abortion, but it is insane to claim that genetics (the very thing that makes whites white and negroes negroes) is of no consequence.

            2b) “A woman isn’t “degenerate stock” because she has been told her entire life that she has the inalienable right to abort her child if she feels like it.”
            Quality women and degenerate women get told the same propaganda, but the degenerates are more likely to abort a child (or multiple abortions) than a quality woman.
            You and I both not that antiabortionism is the dominant stance in the South anyway.

          • 2a.) Since your theory is apparently that abortion is being driven by genetics, why don’t you cite the work of some actual geneticists who agree?

            2b.) Again, who are the geneticists who say that White women who have abortions are genetic degenerates? If you are not making this up, where is this coming from?

          • 2a) Why, so you can ignore it?
            Actually, I’m making the claim that some women are genetically more inclined to degeneracy and that abortion selects for degenerates.

            I think just about every eugenicist in history agrees that genetics affects behavior. Why don’t you cite a geneticist that doesn’t think genetics affects behavior?

            2b) Well, I don’t have a degree in genetics, and I don’t want to give away too much info about myself online, but I took genetics, biochem, microbiology, zoology, comparative anatomy, parasitology, virology, immunology and statistics in college, so I feel at least a little bit qualified to count myself. The biology courses of course all overlap to some degree, and most of them taught a lot about how evolution works.

            Why don’t you cite a geneticist who disagrees with me? Given that he will probably lose his job for openly agreeing with my stance, you can probably find one who toes the line on the PC narrative.

            Just the fact that we see the pattern black>Hispanic>white makes it pretty hard to deny that abortion selects for degeneracy and/or low IQ. It’s amazing that you demand more proof than that in the first place. But then it’s amazing that you seem to act like HBD stops at the white race. Incredible.

            I’ve never met anyone who was perfectly realistic on genetics and race, then threw it all out the window when you cross the racial line to focus on whites.

          • 2a.) Because I believe you are making shit up as you go along. I’m calling bullshit. Who are the geneticists who believe White women who get abortions are genetic degenerates?

            BTW, it is an enormous leap from saying behavioral genetics is a legitimate field to saying this or that fashionable trend is driven by bad heredity and that it justifies killing 25 million or so White children.

            2b.) If you learned about all this in college, then who are your sources? As far as HBD goes, nothing has done more to discredit the field than crackpot theories about inherited traits than have been thrown around with little or no evidence. I’m not slamming those who believe in HBD who are typically far less casual in their assertions.

          • 2a) Genetics isn’t a licensed field, but an area of study, so anyone who studies/has studied genetics is a geneticist. So I can cite myself

            Nobody is denying that propaganda–> degenerate culture–> increased promiscuity–> increased abortion.

            And for the umpteenth time, I have challenged you on this question:

            If genetics isn’t a factor, then why do we observe the ever so predictable, repeatable trend of black>hispanic>white?

            2b) We didn’t study the demographics of abortion. We studied Biology, which by nature includes a heavy dose of genetics and evolution. Like good professors, they danced around debates that might offend the thought police, so even if they were aware of the abortion eugenics debate, they would have been inclined to keep quiet about it. They had their plates full just teaching evolution to a student body made up largely of evangelical Christians.

            However our genetics professor did introduce the term “eugenics” and it was the first time I heard it. He mentioned the famous quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes regarding the sterilization of criminals. He also mentioned that the US used to have eugenics standards for immigration, such as rejecting the mentally feeble, though I don’t remember him talking about race, though it’s understandable why he wouldn’t mention it.

            Since we’re talking about college biology here, my zoology professor taught us about r vs K reproductive strategies, where oysters and insects are extremely r selected while humans are very K selected.

            Phillip Rushton was the first person I heard of pointing out the r selection of negroes to the K selection of whites from a scientific perspective (though it’s reality has been observed by many, many Southerners who knew nothing of the r vs K phenomenon in Biology).

            Differing traits among races often cross racial lines, and we can observe that promiscuity is no exception. I’m sure most OD readers can recall who the sluts were back in high school, and those who went to college can certainly recall that some girls got a reputation for being “easy”. These girls usually were exploited by boys who were happy to “pump and dump”. This is an example of r selection behavior among whites. Call me crazy, but the girls I’ve described here are probably much more likely to get an abortion than a girl who successfully maintains virginity till marriage.

            Both types of girls mentioned above are subject to the same poz propaganda, same poz culture, mostly go to the same high schools and the same colleges, but behave very differently. Call me crazy but I’ll bet some girls are genetically more susceptible to poz culture while some are genetically recalcitrant.

            I am of the opinion that susceptibility to feminism or any other aversion to having children (and either using bc or abortion to stop it) is at the evolutionary level, little different from an infectious disease plague, which selectively weeds out the most susceptible while leaving behind the most resistant.

            Therefore, we are experiencing an unprecedented weeding of liberal, feminist type whites, while tramps and quality whites are having more children (not totally unaffected by bc, but not affected as much as liberals).

            Abortion further mitigates the fertility of tramps while barely touching the fertility of quality white women. That is to say a prostitute’s baby is much more likely to get aborted than a Duggar baby.

            Unless you’re willing to argue that mentally healthy, high iq conservatives are just as likely to get an abortion as a NOLA prostitute, then you have to concede that abortion is eugenic.

          • 2a.) Just like I thought, you are making this shit up as you go along. The fact that you can’t point to even a single authority on the subject who believes this, not even a geneticist on the fringes of HBD, shows that the idea has no scientific merit.

            2b.) Call me crazy, but casual sex, abortion, miscegenation, childnessness, gender confusion, homosexuality and the like have become more socially acceptable since the 1960s, which explains why we have so much more of it now. A generation ago, far less White children were born out-of-wedlock too.

            There has been no sweeping biological change in the White population in a single generation. Instead, there has been a cultural change which is reflected in changes in behavior. Insofar as there is any biological underpinning to this, it is nothing more than conformity, which can mean anything in any cultural context.

            We’re not weeding out liberal feminist Whites. We’re not becoming more conservative. Instead, we have SJWs who are far more radical than their predecessors in the 1960s and 1970s. This is exactly the opposite of what we would predict if there was any merit to the silly notion that “we are weeding them out.”

            You continue to throw around the unsubstantiated notion that women who have abortions are lower class prostitutes and tramps. Proof? Let me guess. You will be citing yourself as an authority on that too.

            Finally, since there are twice as many women who are college graduates than high school drop outs who get abortions, I deny that abortion is “eugenic.”

          • I can’t remember where I read it, but the whole World is in demographic decline, not just Whites. In the future, there’ll be more of everything to split up between fewer and fewer people everywhere. It may make independence and self determination eminently feasible, for everybody.

          • A revealing comment. Being able to see nothing in two fine civilizations but potential “threats”.

          • I am countin 20 yr old tramps, mudsharks, degenerates of many other stripes as our racial enemy, even though they are not actively plotting to destroy civilization, they certainly aren’t helping.

            In similar manner, I would count fleas and ticks as enemies of a dog, even though they are not actively plotting to hurt him. I do not expect any of these fleas or ticks to give birth to a veterinarian that will turn around and save the dog at some point in the future. I only expect them to breed fast, in great numbers, after their own kind, and at the expense of the dog.

          • 1.) Alternatively, the tramps, mudsharks and degenerates are just a reflection of a degenerate culture that celebrates miscegenation, homosexuality, free love, divorce, gender confusion and a wide range of social ills as a positive good. There wasn’t any massive genetic change in the White population in a single generation that caused this and those who engage in this behavior are simply conforming to the perverted norms of our own rotten society.

            2.) More than anything else, it is specious assertions about heredity and this kind of total dehumanizining rhetoric – unborn children are parasites like fleas and ticks – that has marginalized eugenics and made it so repulsive.

            Christians believe that murder is wrong and that children are a blessing. I will just say this discussion reflects the value that eugenicists attach to the family. If you would dispose of children like you would take out the garbage, what does that say about your proposal of building a nation on the basis of kinship?

  4. I think this was the first pro white website I ever visited. Probably googled secession sometime in 2011-2012. Very glad this is where I started my journey. I remember you debating that stormfront Linder dude and getting him to say he would execute Jewish children and that was all I needed to know about the 1488 crowd. You predicting the Glenn Miller extravaganza really nailed it home. OD linked me to MWIR and between the two blogs I received a nice intro to the “alt-right”. It’s always been apparent that you are intelligent and knowledgeable, but lately you are churning out some much needed wisdom.

    • That crowd is not homogeneous, but Hunter was definitely right about the aforementioned wannabe child murderer.

  5. I don’t *want* to abort white children, but sometimes we have to make hard decisions. We are in a race war and there will be casualties. One front of that war is the womb. Right now the whites are winning on the abortion front, since brown babies are being aborted at a much higher rate. Also, a high percentage of the white babies being lost are the children of mudsharks, prostitutes, welfare queens, drug addicts, etc, as well as far left liberals.
    Abortion is killing 2 birds with one stone:
    1)fighting the brown tide
    2)weeding many undesirables (including liberals) from our own race
    Right now, abortion is the only front I can think of where whites are winning the demographic race war. Let’s leave it be and move on to other fronts. If we win our independence, we can replace abortion with something better, like sterilization, but for now we don’t have that option so we’ll just have to be happy with abortion.

    • Since when did white men value quantity over quality? Do you support raising the percentage of white boys raised by single mothers in poverty? Are these kids saved by abortion more likely to grow up to be SJW’s or shitlords?

      • We can take it as certain that degenerate women are getting abortions at a higher rate than the wholesome women. We can also be reasonably sure that politically liberal women are getting abortions at a higher rate than politically conservative.
        Abortion on demand is the biggest lucky break we could hope for.

        • That is, if you believe at least 25 million dead White children is the biggest lucky break we could hope for. If the Jews were doing something like that, the usual suspects would be screaming about “White Genocide.”

          • Like I’ve said many times already, the dead white children are the price we are paying to reduce the PoC population by an even greater amount, and that’s in absolute numbers in the South. Plus, as I’ve said many times, It’s not our highest quality whites, but our degenerates that we are losing to abortion.

            Well, I’d say it is largely Jew driven.

          • 1.) Anyone who celebrates or justifies the death of 28 million White children isn’t pro-White.

            2.) The women who are aborting their children aren’t doing it because they are making any kind of racial sacrifice. Virtually no White woman who has an abortion claims she is doing it because more blacks are having abortions.

            3.) Who are the geneticists who agree that White women who have abortions are genetic degenerates?

    • 1.) After 40 years of abortion in the US, White America is not winning on the demographic front. In fact, Whites fell under 50% of total births in 2011.

      2.) After 40 years of abortion in the US, the attenuated racial instincts of Whites have continued to weaken.

      3.) After 40 years of abortion in the US, White America has become more culturally degenerate and has embraced even loonier fringe ideas like gay marriage and abolishing gender segregation in public restrooms.

      A culture that sanctions killing its own children is degenerate by definition. Such a culture will have a very weak level of racial consciousness. It will embrace every sick or perverse idea that is out there. Parents who will kill their own children won’t care about racial survival.

      • 1) Others and I together have pointed it out to you several times now that this is because of 1965 immigration act. You know it’s true anyway, yet you repeatedly play dumb and repeat the same line like it hasn’t been refuted.

        2) I guess propaganda has nothing to do with this.

        3a) Yes, I’m sure abortion caused all this.

        3b) “Parents who will kill their own children won’t care about racial survival either.”
        As multiple commenters, including me have pointed out to you several times, it is a self selection process. Our enemies are aborting their children, not ours!

        • 1.) I have also pointed out in 1970 the US was whiter than at any point in history. Abortion was illegal in most states until 1973. Far from being overrun by the black horde, the black share of the population had shrunk to its historic low and has actually grown, albeit slightly, since Roe v. Wade.

          All this nonsense that abortion is saving us is false. If you added back every single person who was aborted and factored in the infant mortality rate and the higher black mortality rate, there was no demographic shift at all from abortion.

          2.) A culture that kills millions of its own children has probably already bought into the propaganda. In fact, that’s exactly what happened with the Civil Rights Movement paving the road to women’s rights and legal abortion in the 1970s.

          3a.) Abortion is probably the ultimate signal that a culture is degenerating and has lost the will to live for the future.

          3b.) A confused woman who aborts her child because she feels she isn’t responsible enough to be a parent yet isn’t our “enemy.” Just how many White people do you consider the “enemy”?

          • 1a) What do you think is causing black neighborhoods to gentrify? It’s because fewer yoofs are being born.

            1b) The black infant mortality rate in the chart you posted 2 days ago (included below) indicates that the black infant mortality rate is only about 15/1,000 which is negligible alongside the white/black disparity in abortion rate. Regarding the higher black yoof mortality rate, that is overwhelmingly male, and given that they are not monogamous, does little or nothing to suppress the black birth rate.

            2) Abortion is the caboose, not the locomotive. Banning it isn’t going to make the changes we want.

            3a) Good thing there’s a big ass selection bias so that wholesome white women are not getting abortions at the rate degenerates are.

            3b) The girl in question doesn’t care much for the child or she would give it up for adoption. If she’s willing to abort it, she either already knows there is something wrong with it or is extremely careless regarding her own baby–That’s a trait we should select against.

          • 1a.) Hmm, I don’t know. Could it be related to the high black incarceration rate?

            2a.) Regarding the infant mortality rate, black children under 1 are twice as likely to die than White children. Black children are more likely to die than White children for a variety of reasons in childhood and especially from crime as adolescents. Stretched out over a 40 year period, there is no demographic benefit to abortion, or it is so small that it is negligible.

            3.) You are pulling this out of your ass. Also, if the degenerate White women are being influenced by mainstream culture through the mass media, the problem has nothing to do with heredity.

            4.) We know why women abort their children because the reasons are constantly surveyed. The major reason has always been an unwillingness to assume responsibility for the child. This doesn’t reflect any biological problem. Instead, it reflects a culture which celebrates “rights” and glorifies “freedom” and radical individualism.

          • 1a) Incarceration could be a contributing factor, but as I’ve said, they’re not monogamous, so male incarceration isn’t going to lower the birth rate much.

            2a) “Regarding the infant mortality rate, black children under 1 are twice as likely to die than White children.”

            I’ll take what I can get but 15/1000 vs 7.5/1000 is negligible.

            Let’s to the math.

            In 2012 in Alabama, there were 6,321 PoC abortions compared to 2,703 abortions to white women.

            Now let’s just go ahead and count all PoC as black, even though if we were splitting hairs, the Hispanic and Other mortality rate would likely be lower.

            6,321 x .0150 = 95 PoC babies that would have died as infants had they not been aborted.

            2,703 x .0075 = 20 white babies that would have died as infants if they had not been aborted.

            6,321 – 95 = 6,226 reduction in PoC babies born after adjusting for infant mortality.

            2,703 – 20 = 2,683 reduction in white babies born after adjusting for infant mortality.

            Of course there is surely selection bias that I cannot account for since abortions are among the degenerates who will have a higher than avg infant mortality rate for their respective race anyway, but as you can see factoring in the infant mortality rate does not significantly impact the results.

            Again, the crime related deaths for blacks are overwhelmingly male, so it’s not going to make a hill of beans’ difference.

            3a) No I’m not pulling it out of my ass. We can see from the data (as if we even needed to go there) that abortion rates by race follow the same pattern we observe over and over:


            which matches the pattern we see for:

            –out of wedlock birth rate

            –violent crime rate

            –inversely correlated with IQ

            When we consider the black>Hispanic>white pattern we have to acknowledge that it’s extremely unlikely that wholesome white women are getting abortions at the same rate degenerate white women are.

            Do you really believe it’s the wholesome women rather than degenerates getting the abortions? Are you actually going to make that assertion?

            3b) Listen, there are very few things that “have nothing to do with heredity” but since that’s not enough for you, I’ll remind you again of the racial disparity of black>Hispanic>white.

            Since all 3 races are subject to the same propaganda, laws, etc. we can conclude that propaganda alone must not be the only problem. I can’t think of any confounding factor that would account for the racial disparity other than genetics.

            Given the conclusion that genetics explains the difference between the abortion rates by race, it is extremely unlikely that genetics is not a major factor in which whites are getting abortions.

            4) “We know why women abort their children because the reasons are constantly surveyed.”
            Women lie more than they tell the truth. Even if we were not having this argument, you could bet your ass that the survey does not tell us the truth.
            Do you actually think any woman is going to say “I’m aborting my pregnancy because I’m a degenerate, drug addicted, prostitute/stripper and the big belly will ruin my tips.”?

          • 1.) In 1990, the 29,930,524 blacks were 12% of the population. In 2010, the 38.9 million blacks were 13% of the population. How is missing “black yoofs” responsible for the decline in violent crime when the black population is up by nearly 10 million over the past 20 years?

            2.) If the 55.7 million abortions had never happened, it amounts to all of a 2.1% increase in the black population over a period of 40 years, which could easily be wiped out among other things by 1.) fewer DINKs or 2.) more immigration from White countries or 3.) a slightly higher White birthrate

            3a.) From what I can tell, you are jumping to conclusions based on your assumption that White women who have abortions are biological degenerates.

            3b.) May we assume there has been yet another inexplicable biological change in the White population which accounts for the decline in the White abortion rate since the 1990s?

            4.) I see … so now all the White women who have abortions are lying mudsharks and drug addicts. And this is based on what?

          • 1) Abortion is also eugenic for blacks.

            2) Ok, well when you fix all those other things, we’ll be less desperate to keep abortion legal.

            3a) Let’s see if I can get to the point a little quicker:
            Hunter, do you believe that it is possible for a white woman to be a biological degenerate, ie. genetically more inclined to prostitution, promiscuity, mudsharking, drug use, etc. than other white women?

            3b) It’s not inexplicable at all. IT’S EUGENICS FROM ABORTION. Abortion is noncyclical by nature since fetuses that get aborted don’t grow up to get abortions. If there is a cyclical component to degeneracy, and abortions select for degenerates, then abortion breaks the cycle of generational degeneracy.

            I am not claiming that this is the only factor, since making it harder to get abortions will also reduce the abortion rate. There could also be other factors I’m not aware of.

            4) You are playing the SJW as hard as you can here. Please cite where I said “all women who get abortions.”

            Go ahead, I’ll wait.

            “And this is based on what?”
            I just told you in 3a above, which by the way you never bothered to even try to refute. If there is a problem with my logic, please point it out.

          • 1.) Where are the missing black yoofs? The black population is much larger today than it was in 1990.

            2.) Why should we be desperate to keep abortion legal? Over a period of 40 years, it has kept the black population from growing by 2.1% percent at most. The black population has lately even fallen below the replacement level. If Whites had slightly more children, it wouldn’t even have a miniscule impact.

            3a.) Given the huge change in miscegenation and gender confusion that I have seen in my lifetime, it is clear to me that popular culture, not genetics, is driving it. A greater tendency to conform to social norms isn’t proof of “degeneracy.”

            3b.) Is there anyone who seriously believes this?

            4.) This is all you claiming that women who get abortions are biological degenerates like drug addicts and mudsharks.

          • 1) Again, abortion is also eugenic for blacks, meaning that abortion is working to reduce the crime *rate* among blacks, so it can actually reduce crime by blacks, even if the population remains stable. And don’t forget, you’ve already conceded a couple days ago, and again in #2 that blacks are breeding at below replacement level.

            2) I don’t know where you got the 2.1% from, but I count that as good news.

            “The black population haa lately even fallen below the replacement level.”

            And you don’t think the black abortion rate had anything to do with this?

            “If Whites had slightly more children, it wouldn’t even have a miniscule impact.”
            So are you able to make them have more children? Didn’t think so. We had better take what we can get, and that includes abortion.

            3a) How many times are you going to pretend that the obvious effect of poz propaganda somehow proves that there is no genetic component. Some people are going to be more genetically recalcitrant, some more susceptible. Again, if there were no genetic component, then why is there such racial disparity that follows the same pattern we see in almost anything else.
            If you are going to keep asserting this, then please explain why we see the ever so predictable pattern black>Hispanic>white.

            3b) Probably most anyone who thinks about it. Just like abortion and crime rate decline. Most anybody who takes the time to think it through and weigh the evidence will come to a similar conclusion. You would have to be an HBD denier not to see it.

            4) I have consistently maintained the claim that white degenerates get abortions at a higher rate than quality whites. I have never claimed that “All white women who get abortions are degenerates.” But thanks for the accusation.

            How can you actually deny that degenerates get abortion at a higher rate than quality women? I just don’t understand how anybody but a leftist who wanted to decouple actions from consequences (and pander to their base) would deny that.

          • 1.) Who are the criminologists who believe abortion of blacks is responsible for the drop in the black crime rate?

            2.) That’s the number that I came up with when the 55.7 million who were aborted were folded back into their census category.

            From what I remember, blacks are also having fewer abortions. They just make up a greater share of the total now that White women were having far less abortions than in the 1980s.

            No, we don’t. It is immoral to abort 28 million or so of our own people because of the selfish and degenerate behavior of DINKs, homosexuals, and Whites engaged in frivolous hookup relationships.

            3a.) I’m not the one arguing that White women who abort their children are genetic degenerates. It is incumbent upon you to justify that assertion.

            3b.) Even among the HBD crowd, who believes this?

          • 1) I haven’t read criminologists, but I have read this paper, or at least part of it from the relevant chapter in the book Freakonomics. It’s what made me think about the eugenic effects of abortion several years ago.

            Levitt further defends the argument here:

            2) “From what I remember, blacks are also having fewer abortions. They just make up a greater share of the total now that White women were having far less abortions than in the 1980s.”

            I used to be able to access a pdf from CDC that showed the black, Hispanic, white abortion rates over time since 1973. From that I could see that the gap between the white rate and the black rate is widening as the years march on. That’s even more good news for us.

            “No, we don’t. It is immoral to abort 28 million or so of our own people because of the selfish and degenerate behavior of DINKs, homosexuals, and Whites engaged in frivolous hookup relationships.”

            I think I remember someone claiming he wasn’t going to appeal to religion (appeal to morality is essentially a religious argument) but only argue from a secular/nationalist perspective.

            “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:”

            I also think I remember telling you over, and over, that we are not aborting ours, rather they are aborting theirs.

            3a) I already have, but you deny it. I have challenged you several times already:

            If genetics isn’t a factor then why do we see racial disparities despite the same propaganda and laws applying equally to all races?

            You have still failed to meet that challenge. Why don’t you make an attempt to discredit that logic the next time you claim I have not provided supporting evidence.

            3b) Probably most everyone who has thought about it.

            Besides, are you actually denying that abortion is noncyclical by nature? Do I actually have to explain to you that fetuses that get aborted don’t grow up to get abortions?

            4) You have just conceded that it is true:

            “because of the selfish and degenerate behavior of DINKs, homosexuals, and Whites engaged in frivolous hookup relationships.”
            Thank you for finally laying it to rest.
            Now please don’t turn around and deny it again with your next comment.

          • 1.) Nothing from the peer reviewed literature by professionals who specialize in the topic then? This seems a good reason to warrant depriving 55.7 million people of life. As far as I can tell, Levitt is an economist by training.

            2.) This is due to the decline in White women having abortions. Married White women, for example, are much less likely to get abortions today than they were in the 1980s.

            I just did. As a nationalist, I believe that my ethnic group is my extended family. I believe that citizenship should be based in kinship. I don’t even have to point out what is wrong with abortion on religious grounds to show that the family and kinship are meaningless to eugenicists who justify killing millions of our own people.

            You have spent hours of my time responding to your arguments that degenerates Whites are having abortions.

            3a.) It is not incumbent upon me to prove a negative.

            3b.) If that is the case, then it should be no problem for you to cite, say, the CDC or any authority – even the rogue HBD theorists – on the subject to demonstrate that we are “breeding” the problem out.

            4.) The aforementioned factors can easily be changed and more than wipe out any demographic shift from abortion which extremely small anyway. What’s more, you have failed to explain how women who college graduates who are getting abortions to end unwanted pregnancies – nearly half of all pregnancies – are engaging in “eugenics.”

          • Look, we both know it’s going to be very hard to cite a journal article because whoever submits or publishes an article saying the things I’m saying is going to come under fire from the thought police.

            Saying “You can’t cite a journal article, so it’s not true.” is terrible logic anyway and you know it.

            2) “I don’t even have to point out what is wrong with abortion on religious grounds to show that the family and kinship are meaningless to eugenicists who justify killing millions of our own people.”

            What eugenicists? You have to cite a recent peer reviewed journal that states that kinship is meaningless to eugenicists or the whole statement is hogwash. That’s fair, right?

            3) Ok, fine, then it was never incumbent on me to prove that abortion was not a demographic wash. But I did it anyway.

            By your logic then, it is not incumbent on me to prove that wholesome women do not get abortions at the same or higher rate than degenerate women. It is up to you to prove that they do, and citing college abortions doesn’t count because we both know universities are havens for degenerates.

            4) Does the CDC have any articles saying we are heading for collapse because of undesirable immigration? Do you deny that also?

            I don’t think Wikipedia is very objective on issues like politics and race, but they do have an article on the Roe effect.

            Also the liberal half Jew, Eric Kauffman wrote this book:
            and talks about it in these videos


            where he laments the decline of liberalism because liberals simply aren’t having as many babies as conservatives. Unfortunately this is also true among Jews and Muslims, so we can expect more and more hostility from the Islamic world if we don’t start exterminating them. Perhaps it could work in our favor concerning the Jews though, but I’m not holding my breath.
            I don’t think he uses the word “abortion” but he does use the phrase “decoupling sex and procreation” so the principle still applies.

          • 1.) All kinds of controversial topics, whether it is IQ tests or genetic distance between the races or racial differences in crime or issues in behavioral genetics and sociobiology, are debated in the relevant academic literature. You mentioned Rushton earlier who published hundreds of articles on the topic of racial differences.

            Where is any of this coming from? That’s what I would like to know. It sounds to me like you are making it up as you go along which makes it nothing more than conjecture. What is even more disturbing is that you justify killing more than 55.7 million people on nothing more than a hunch.

            Once again, this sort of thing is precisely why eugenics fell into such disrepute in the first place.

            2.) I’m reacting to the responses that I am seeing here, at Radix, at Counter-Currents and from what I have read in all the books that I have on subject. I’m going on what eugenicists have told me about abortion. They are quite eager to start judging who is worthy of life.

            A nationalist is someone who values his people and who believes the social order should be based on shared kinship. In this sense, the nation is an extended family of people who are related through blood. It is a community in which you are born into. Unlike liberals, we attach great meaning to shared kinship.

            It is clear from all these statements that neither the family or kinship are of much importance to eugenicists – at least those who embrace negative eugenics – who are quite comfortable with mothers killing their own children so long as they think it will advance their aims.

            3.) If you are asserting that “degenerate women” are getting abortions and “wholesome women” are not getting them, then it is incumbent upon you to justify that argument. You are the one who is claiming that all these women are “degenerates.” You can’t even define what makes a woman a genetic degenerate.

            4.) As far as I know, demographers are the last to dispute the changing racial composition of the American population. This has been common knowledge for years and has been discussed in the media with great fanfare.

            5.) Where has liberalism declined because of abortion? We have had over 55.7 million abortions in the United States and we are far more liberal on a number of issues than when I was born in 1980. Just last year, the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

            I suppose you could say that Muslims are taking over Europe because of immigration and higher birthrates. I would agree with that because it is an indictment of European nihilism, atheism, and radical individualism. I don’t agree that abortion is making White Europeans more conservative.

          • 1a) First, you show me the peer reviewed articles in genetics journals from eugenicists who do not believe in kin selection (aka preferring your own race) then I’ll see what I can come up with. But the author has to have a genetics degree–he can’t be an economist or statistician by training.

            1b) “Where is this coming from”

            I’ve laid it down for you several times, line by line, point by point, precept by precept.

            2) I’m still waiting for you to cite a peer reviewed article from a degreed geneticist who advocates for eugenics, but doesn’t believe in racial preferences.

            “A nationalist is someone who values his people and who believes the social order should be based on shared kinship.”

            And just how is this incompatible with eugenics? I say that it is not incompatible with eugenics. You have to prove that it is, because it is not incumbent upon me to prove a negative. Please cite a peer reviewed article in a genetics journal by a degreed geneticist who advocates for eugenics.

            4) But do they say we are heading for collapse because of it? You challenged me to cite a source saying we are “breeding out the problem” by abortion. Do you really think CDC is going to print something like that? I therefore challenged you to cite an article saying that we are heading for collapse because of immigration. Sure they acknowledge that we are browning, but they aren’t going to say we are heading for collapse because of it. I am asking you to meet the same standard you challenged me to.
            5) because liberalism is progressive by nature. We know that a few of them by their conniving, backstabbing, double standards and usurpation of authority are dictating to a majority who disagree with them.
            In fact, I think you may have already acknowledged that support for abortion is declining. This is described by the Roe effect, which I have already cited.

          • 1a.) Richard Lynn , Arthur Jensen, Rushton and others have published hundreds of articles in academic journals on race and intelligence. This is not to say, however, that every crank theory is discussed in the relevant academic journals, only that controversial subjects are discussed there.

            1b.) No, you haven’t. Instead, you have been reduced to citing your own opinion after taking a few college classes.

            2.) Once again, controversial subjects are discussed in peer reviewed journals. Liberal eugenics, for example, has been discussed for more than 20 years now. Lee Silver and other academics have written endless volumes about the issue.

            The fact that eugenicists advocate mothers killing their own children illustrates in the brightest red ink the value that they attach to kinship and the family. The fact that they rationalize it happening 28 million times underlines it.

            4.) I never argued that we are “heading for a collapse” because of immigration. The fact that America’s racial demographics are changing is disputed by no one.

            5.) The triumph of gay marriage, transgenderism, attacks on the Confederate flags, SJWs going nuts on college campuses all show that liberalism is not in decline.

          • 3a)
            Me: Hunter, fire burns.
            You : No it doesn’t.
            Me: Ok , stick your hand in a fire then.
            You: It is not incumbent upon me to prove a negative. (Thinking this wins the argument)

          • You are making wild, unsubstantiated claims that women who have abortions are genetic degenerates. When asked to justify your argument, you can’t cite anyone with any expertise on the issue. Finally, you are comparing it sticking your hand in a fire and announcing that fire burns.

            What if I told you that crop circles are caused by aliens because I saw it featured in a tabloid? You ask me to justify this wild assertion. I cite my own opinion and say it is as obvious that the sky is blue.

          • 3a) The fact that we see the trend black>Hispanic>white is pretty strong proof that abortion is associated with degenerate behavior.

            You have also conceded that abortion is associated with degenerate behavior anyway:
            “because of the selfish and degenerate behavior of DINKs, homosexuals, and Whites engaged in frivolous hookup relationships.”
            I think that should end the argument, but if you are eager for punishment and embarrassment, I’m willing to keep going.

          • 3a.) You: “The fact that we see the trend black>Hispanic>white is pretty strong proof that abortion is associated with degenerate behavior.”

            Me: If that is a degenerate trend, then is having children a degenerate behavior? Blacks and Hispanics have a higher birthrate than Whites. Homosexuals have the fewest children. Genius!

            I agree that abortion is a degenerate behavior, but I don’t think it is hereditary, or that aborted children are “genetic degenerates.” Let’s continue.

          • Interesting.

            The Non-Hispanic White illegitimacy rate has shot up from 9.5% to 29.2% between 1979 and 2014. Shouldn’t it have gone down given all the “genetic degenerates” we are weeding out of the gene pool?

          • 1.) In 1970, Alabama reached the whitest point in our entire history – 74 percent – when abortion was illegal here. That wasn’t because so many blacks moved out of Alabama either. The entire country reached its whitest point in history. Tellingly, the entire South has become less White since abortion was legalized in 1973.

            2.) A few years ago, I calculated the rate of racial change of every state in the country:


            Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Arkansas had among the lowest rates of racial change in the United States.

            3.) Mississippi has the lowest abortion rate in the United States: 3.6


            New York has among the highest abortion rates – a stunning 25.8. Between 1970 and 2012, Mississippi became 5 percent less White while abortion paradise New York became 21.7 percent less White.

            4.) As I showed in the previous thread, if you added back every single one of the abortions between 1973 and 2013, it amounted to a whopping 2.1 percent accumulated net black demographic gain over a period of 40 years, and that is assuming that every single black child that wasn’t aborted survived into adulthood.

          • 1) And your point is?
            2) And your point is?
            3) And your point is?

            Let me make an assertion based on the same logic.
            League of the South was formed in 1994.
            Our culture is much more pozzed than it was in 1994.
            Obviously League of the South is pozzing our culture.

          • 1.) The fact that Alabama and every other Southern state reached the whitest point in our entire history while abortion was illegal and that we have gone in exactly the opposite demographic direction since it was legalized refutes the argument that abortion is some kind of huge net demographic benefit to us.

            2.) Deep South states with lots of blacks and low abortion rates like Mississippi and Louisiana changed the least since abortion was legalized. In contrast, the states with the most abortions were some of those that changed the fastest, which became more non-White at a faster pace.

            3.) If abortion was the huge demographic boon that you make it out to be, then it should have been Mississippi, which has the lowest abortion rate and the highest share of rapidly proliferating blacks in the country, which should have been changed the fastest. Instead, just the opposite was true. It was abortion paradises like New York which grew 4x more non-White over the same time period.

            4.) This is a straw man.

          • 1) No it doesn’t! You cannot really be this dense in your real life! You simply must be determined to fight the obvious truth no matter how dumb it makes your comments look!
            Your argument is like saying:
            –I started watering my garden to make it grow.
            –Since I started watering my garden, it has been overtaken by insects and produced nothing.
            –Therefore, watering ones garden is of no benefit.

            2) Let me guess, this was based on % change in nonwhites, like saying “the nonwhite population of Whitestate increased by 30% while the nonwhite population of Mississippi only increased by 5%.”
            Do I even need to explain that math to you?
            Another explanation could simply be migration or immigration.

            3) Look, I’m really getting tired of having to tell you about the immigration act of 1965 over and over as if you didn’t know. From now on I’m just going to abbreviate 1965 every time you pull this one up again.
            Obviously, New York has been more of an immigrant destination than MS, and since immigration since 1965 has been mostly nonwhite, I think you can understand.

            4) Maybe it would work better if I worded it like this:
            League of the South was formed in 1994.
            Our culture is much more pozzed than it was in 1994.
            Obviously League of the South is doing nothing to depoz our culture.

          • 1.) If it is such an obvious truth, explain why the US has become significantly less White since abortion was legalized, but reached the whitest point in history in 1970 when abortion was illegal.

            Shouldn’t that have been impossible? When abortion was illegal, the black horde should have been overwhelming us with its high birthrate, particularly in Alabama. Yet we go back and see that Alabama was 74 percent White in 1970.

            Alabama was becoming whiter when abortion was illegal.

            2.) Once again, we should predict that rapidly proliferating blacks and low abortion rates would be rapidly changing the Deep South given the positive demographic impact of abortion. In reality, Mississsippi, Alabama and Louisiana are among the least changed states in the country.

            3.) Even if we grant New York has been changed by immigration, Mississippi is changing slower than all but a handful of states, which illustrates that the impact of abortion is hyped. Mississippi has the lowest abortion rate in the country and is only 5 percent less White than it was in 1970.

          • 1) Before 1965 immigration was almost all white, after 1965 immigration act, almost all immigration has been nonwhite. Call me crazy, but that just might have something to do with it. There could have also been other factors that I’m not aware of.

            No it was not impossible. How could you actually not see that.

            Please, please, please take a minute to study what a confounding factor is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

            2) Please show me your numbers, so I can critique them. Even if you do, there’s still any number of *confounding factors* that could skew results.

            3) If they encouraged abortion instead of blocking it, maybe they could be 5% more white by now instead of 5% less white. Ya think?

          • 1.) All right.

            You’re crazy. Both immigration and abortion were restricted before 1964. Few immigrants were coming here. The immigrant share of the population declined significantly.

            Before the 1960s, non-White immigration, abortion, miscegenation and homosexuality were restricted. Feminism wasn’t triumphant. Childlessness was taboo and DINKs were rare. The birth control pill wasn’t yet on the market. Free love was considered a perversion. Call me crazy, but maybe that had something to do with it.

            2.) I linked to it above.

            From 1970 until 2012, the Deep South which had some of the lowest abortion rates changed the least. Mississippi, which has the lowest abortion rate and the most blacks, changed the least whereas New York which 8x as much abortion became 4x more non-White.

            3.) Maybe abortion isn’t having anywhere close to the racial impact you believe it is having? As for Mississippi, immigration and outmigration can easily explain its demographic decline.

          • We must understand this Hunter it was the Great Migration that helped to lower Negro populations in Alabama and elsewhere. Southern White birthrate began to decline in 1930s until it was reaching critical decline by the 1960s. Even during the so-called Baby Boom, families of 10-12 children that had been common in 1900 were increasingly rare.

            Lets say this had Dixie became free again in 1960, it would have still been in trouble because of the White demographic decline. Miss Senator Bilbo wrote about this in his book Take Your Pick Seperation or Mongrelization. He wrote that by 1940 whites were abandoning parts of the Delta and he worried as counties became 50% plus Negro that it would be much more difficult to deprive them the ballot. Another good example of demographic upheaval were the thousands of Whites in KY, W VA, VA, NC and TENN who went to Ohio and Michigan to work and stayed there. Some counties in Kentucky lost 25% or more of their white population to Ohio and Michigan.

            Unfortunately, there isn’t one answer to all of these problems.

          • 1) Oh, look. I found this chart. Look how the immigration before 1960 was clearly majority white for every decade prior to 1960, then about 50:50 white:nonwhite from 1960-1970 when the 1970 census was taken showing the country at its whitest point in history. Amazing how that works (more white immigrants leading to a progressively whiter country).

            It is interesting to note that the immigration act of 1965, which you seem to be unaware of, so I’ll link to it here:
            changed the racial makeup of immigration from mostly white to mostly brown.

            Then from 1970 onward, the immigration was mostly nonwhite. I wonder if that has anything to do with our % white population getting lower ever since the 1970 census you mentioned. Just a wild guess, but I’m gonna say it’s the cause.

            I bet if I took time to look these numbers up in absolute terms, it would show all this nonwhite immigration has been overpowering the gains we get from abortion. That would mean that even though abortion has proved to be a net gain for us demographically, we are still getting browner as a country because of immigration and despite the whitening affect of abortion.

          • Check this out:

            1.) As everyone familiar with the issue well knows, the Immigration Act of 1924 created the national origins system and restricted immigration until the Immigration Act of 1964 was passed by Congress.

            2.) From 1924 until 1964, total immigration to the United States plunged and the immigrant share of the population dwindled relative to the native born population.

            3.) Those immigrants who came here during the Great Wave overwhelmingly settled outside the South. This is why the White population in the South is so much less Catholic.

            4.) In other words, both immigration and abortion were restricted in the decades before the Immigration Act of 1964 and Roe v. Wade in 1973. In the South, few immigrants came here anyway because the region was so rural and poor. Yet the South reached its whitest point in history in 1970.

            5.) In the 1960s, the death rate for blacks was higher than it was for Whites. Now the situation is reversed.

          • Hunter Thomas Jefferson opened the floodgates wide in 1801 after repealing John Adams Alien and Sedition Act, which proscribed a 14 yr wait for citizenship. From 1801 until 1921 when we began to restrict immigration our borders were wide open. Jefferson like the entire Democratic Party of today believed Open Borders=Power. However Jefferson didnt take into account that open borders would cause the North to outgrow the South artificially and it did. In fact every attempt to close the borders in the 1830s-1860 got you called all sorts of names. Know Nothing was one of them.

      • 100% correct. The remnant of Jacob ie Christians are now enslaved by Esau ie the Jewish imposters running this earth. Esau has wanted his birthright back for almost 4000 years, this war will not end until the end.

      • “A culture that sanctions killing millions of its own children is degenerate by definition”

        That is what white societies have been about for centuries. More specifically, that is what WWI was about. Sending millions to a sure death for nothing.

        People don’t abort for fun. If they can prevent it they won’t do it. Banning it won’t change anything. People will continue to abort in worse conditions (just like Prohibition). And as PrezDavis has said, it prevents many unwanted and potentially troublesome people of non-European descent from being born.

        Similarly, gay marriage is not really an issue. Personally I find their tacky parades sort of tasteless, but gays have always been around, they are harmless. No one “becomes” queer. I agree not to completely normalize them, because they can not be equal to heterosexuals, but that’s all about it.

        An empty slogan such as “all life is precious” would be insufferably effeminate and cucky to our ancestors.

        And about Christianity, well…

        Christianity, like all religions, is a delusion. A mental trick to make us endure the endless drudgery life is. Something like “just believe this set of stories and worry no more”.

        People ask “who are you to kill somebody?”… the right question is “who are you to beget somebody?” You can not answer it without either egoistic or religious arguments.

  6. Gordy looks great.

    A real man’s man….

    Still he looks a bit lonely.

    How about a few brothers and sisters?


  7. Hunter, your son is a real cutie. And, the picture itself is so….. well, white. It invokes the glorious feeling of yesteryear….. and a child doing what a child should be doing. I see a lot of you in him, especially around the eyes. I know you’ll give him the best possible life. And, he will be proud of who he is and what he is. Yes, three more is really good but six more would be outstanding. I only have one and that is my biggest regret in life.

  8. Aww, adorable! Thanks! I know you can’t drive around protesting much anymore, but it’s sad that some of your best writing comes just as donation options disappear.

    Also, a correction is needed. The Overman is already among us! While he doesn’t agree with us on everything, he is against abortion.


  9. Your little boy is wonderful, and he IS a Superman – because he exists. Bless you, your wife, your darling little boy, and his future brothers and sisters!

  10. France.

    Houellebecq is full of BS in this one regard.

    He frets about Europe being ruled by Muslims, but he overlooks the fact that it is already under the rule of foreign/freakish elements. Globo-Zionists and homos.

    EU is occupied by globo-homo US empire.

    But then, White Americans face the same problem.

    Muslims have a long way to go to make any difference in the US, but it is so convenient to freak out about Muslims since it’s so much safer politically than mentioning the fact Kaplan’s Semitic gang has taken over the US, installed Obama, spread the homo agenda, promotes ‘white guilt’, and urges US to invade/invite.

    EU has a bigger Muslim problem, but who has been opening the gates from the inside? Are Soros and ilk Muslim?

    When Sarrazin complained of Muslims, I recall the likes of Leon Wieseltier were calling him all sorts of foul names and calling for invade/invite.


    All this worry about Muslim takeover misses the point.

    Imagine if earth was taken over by Venusians. And these Venusians were inviting Martians to come and join them in the destruction of earthlings. Indeed, suppose Venusians are the ones who are facilitating the voyage of the Martians and disabling any earthling resistance to the Martians.

    Does it make any sense to bitch about Martians without taking into account that earth has already been taken over by Venusians?

    Houellebecq is worried about France being taken over by Muslims? Zionists and homos are not enough for him? France and EU are already alien-occupied territory. And it is this ‘alien’ force that is breaking the gates from the inside. But, the cucked out whites are bitching about Muslims in the name of defending Jews, the very people who are most committed to destroying white nations and white identity/interests.

    But then, I wonder if the Neocon likes of Robert Kaplan talks about how Jews had played an instrumental role in the Muslim takeover of parts of Europe in Spain and Constantinople.

  11. Good for you! I am almost 65, and you have NO IDEA how short life is. The things in life that are so satisfying to me are my children and grandchildren. I am sorry that I didn’t have a bigger family. Forget a better house, car, etc. I wish that I could it all over again.

Comments are closed.