Many of my conservative Jewish friends say that Planned Parenthood does great work in the inner cities.
Aylmer Fisher writes: Few issues divide our movement—whether we call it identitarianism, race-realism, or the “alt Right”—like abortion. To some, the practice is akin to murder, and its acceptance shows the degeneracy of the Left. To others, abortion—and contraception more generally—are eugenic practices, which are about the only things keeping our societies from falling into complete idiocracy.
I understand the pro-life temptation. The kinds of people who support abortion access most fervently are those who stand for the things we oppose: selfishness, atomization, the “liberation” of women, and leftist identity politics. In popular culture, legalized abortion is tied to “reproductive freedom,” which has liberated women from the horrible fate of being wives and mothers and allowed them to pursue more meaningful lives as cubicle drones.
Conversely, it is tempting to believe that abolishing legalized abortion would lead to a return to more traditional values, a higher birthrate, and healthier relations between the sexes. Many European leaders that we admire are moving their countries in a pro-life direction, perhaps because they have bought into this narrative.
Unfortunately, as our movement gains influence, it is important that we not fall prey to the pro-life temptation.
First off, the alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense. Most members of the alt Right applaud countries like Japan and South Korea for having low out-of-wedlock birth rates and not taking in Muslim or African refugees. We don’t simply say “who cares what they do, they’re not my tribe.” Rather, we recognize that such people have built impressive civilizations, and we believe that it is in the interest of humanity that these nations continue to exist, and not adopt the suicidal policies of the West.
Second, we on the alt Right have an appreciation of tribalism and identity. We realize that people are not just autonomous individuals. Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations.
Being pro-life flies in the face both of these principles.
The Pro-Life Movement is Dysgenic
First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic. A 2011 study showed that in 2008, while 16 percent of women aged 15-44 lived below the poverty line, among women who had abortions, the number was 42 percent. Hispanic and African-American women made up a combined 31 percent of this age group, but almost 55 percent of those who chose to terminate a pregnancy. The reasons behind these patterns aren’t hard to figure out. In a world with reliable birth control, it is quite easy to avoid an unwanted pregnancy; the only ones who can’t are the least intelligent and responsible members of society: women who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.
A natural experiment in Colorado shows what happens when a state makes contraception and abortion more freely available. Over the last decade, the state has moved to the Left, and in 2009 it began offering free or low-cost long-acting contraception to poorer women. The state provided intrauterine devices and implants that, unlike condoms or the pill, did not require that the user be responsible enough to plan ahead. Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted. In states where Republican legislatures have enacted a pro-life agenda, the opposite has happened.
The idea that there are capable women out there who are aborting their babies as they delay marriage and climb the corporate ladder is a fantasy. When an intelligent, responsible woman does have an abortion, it is often because the baby has a disease or the pregnancy threatens her health, not because she or her boyfriend forget to use contraception. A study in Europe found that over 90 percent of mothers who were told that their babies were going to have Down’s syndrome did not continue the pregnancy. In 2011, it was estimated that there are now 30 percent fewer people with the disorder in the United States due to prenatal diagnosis. In the future, as such technologies improve, what the Left calls “reproductive freedom” will continue to be the justification for private-sector eugenics.
The Identitarian Case
Not only is the pro-life movement dysgenic, but its justifications rely on principles we generally reject. The alt Right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like “equality” and “human rights,” especially as bases for policy. The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community. If it is not even wanted by its own mother, criminalizing abortion means that the state must step in and say that the individual has rights as an individual, despite its lack of connection to any larger social group. This is no problem to those in the conservative movement, who decide right and wrong based on principles like “the right to life.” It is no coincidence that some of the most pro-life politicians are those most excited about adopting children from Africa and those in their movement are among the conservatives most likely to denounce the “racism” of their political opponents.
The mother-child bond is the strongest of human relationships, the one least subject to being altered by government policy or societal forces. While over the last decades, fathers have become more likely to walk out on their children and divorce rates have risen, there has been no similar rise in females abandoning their children. When the parent-child bond does not exist for a pregnant woman, society has no business stepping in. Those who want to do so, by banning abortion because it’s “racist” or adopting children from Africa, are the ultimate cuckservatives.
If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality. While it’s true that a blanket ban on abortion would probably increase the White population in there numbers, it would, no doubt, decrease the overall quality, as well and leave all races stupider, more criminally prone, and more diseased.
A Better Way
For those of us who believe that the sexual revolution and women’s liberation have been disastrous for society, it is tempting to lash out at contraception and abortion. Yet the pro-life agenda would give us the worst of all worlds. Those whom we want to have children would continue to find a way to do what they wanted, while the birth rates among the worst members of society would explode. Childbearing among better classes would probably decrease even further under the strain of the inevitable increases in crime and redistributive policies that would follow.
It is as if pro-life identitarians want to force women be wives and mothers by leaving them no other choice: Just take away their access to abortion and contraception, and they’ll have to stay home and raise children or stop having sex at all! Yet this kind of thinking implicitly affirms the Left’s premise that, when given a choice, women will want to be barren careerists.
A better way is to make an honest case that feminism has been bad for women. There is no higher calling in life than continuing the species, and raising happy, healthy children who will be a benefit to society. The case that babies are more fulfilling than cubicles should not be hard to make, and has been self-evident to every society not infected with the virus of leftism. Indeed, data shows that as feminism has progressed across the Western world, women have become less happy. The program of the Left fails by its own standards.
* It’s not about anti-Christianity, it’s about putting race and common sense before faith propositions, rather than letting faith propositions get in the way of common sense about demographics. Jesus, therefore a zygote with fewer cells than a fruit fly has a soul, therefore tens and hundreds of millions more brown babies destroying us faster. Saying “nah” to that is the point, not being “anti-Christian.” Being anti-anything that gets in the way of making common sense decisions about taking measures to not see our people destroyed is the result of being pro-white people and our future existence as a first measure. Being a Christian first, which is virtually paramount given the eternal soul proposition, means being willing to adopt a universal religion that places you closer to General Butt Naked for being a Christian than the white man right next to you, if he’s insufficiently heterosexual or pro-life or whatever. That’s race treason.
* If you want tens and hundreds of millions more brown babies because that soul of little blastocyst Tyrone is more important to you than comparative demographics of European peoples, that’s your choice. It’s also, however, the conception of someone who not only isn’t fighting for his people, but is actively subverting his people based on a priori faith propositions. Beyond merely race notions, the vast majority of abortions end up being welfare leeches, costing the state even more money and expanding government further. The ideal state is obviously a white ethnostate where abortion is outlawed or discouraged in the extreme…and we’re not there yet. It’s completely obvious that in the meanwhile, a calculating and tactical choice is appropriate, rather than a universal semitic creed of brotherhood with potential LaQuans rather than the white people currently alive.
* VDare mentioned the old Shockley initiative: Offer defectives $1,000 for every point below 100 on their IQ score to get sterilized. So an 86 would get $14 large – which he or she probably will donate to charity or use as seed money to build a charter school for others in his or her Struggler Class. … Or buy drugs.
We gotta thin this dumbass herd before they’re grazing in our living rooms.
* Good, thought-provoking article. I am increasingly persuaded by the eugenic arguments for abortion: we will simply be better off if certain people are never born, and if even their mothers don’t want them, I’m not inclined to have the state stand in the way. Abortion for blacks should be encouraged (“Exercise your Constitutional Rights, Sistahs), and, like Shockley, I favor financial incentives to encourage sterilization. Where I would intervene is in the case of married women–now you have another person with an interest in the life of the child who has made a legal commitment to the woman involved. A wife should obtain the consent of her husband to have an abortion. This won’t make much difference in the black community, since they mostly don’t get married anyway. A husband is likely to consent to the termination of a seriously defective child.
* You talk about right and left, but let’s go back to the root of “right” vs “left” — aristocratic values vs. egalitarian values. What could be more egalitarian than the doctrinaire universalist theological position that all human life is equally precious? Nature is aristocratic, yes, the same nature created by God, whose iron laws led to the development of our race. If we ignore and violate those laws, we perish. Right now the problem is we aren’t having enough children, and this supersedes all other issues. But the last thing we need are young, healthy white couples choosing to raise Down’s Syndrome babies over healthy offspring out of some misguided liberal or Christian humanitarianism. This is a right-wing point of view, because it is based on the aristocratic principle of nature rather than the sentimental egalitarianism of the left.