I am going to make the case that Southern Nationalists (or perhaps we might also call ourselves Dixian Identitarians) should back off of the antiabortionism, at least dropping the subject if not switching sides. Just looking at the data it is indisputable that keeping abortion on demand legal is doing a tremendous job of mitigating the race problem.
Here’s the data all broken down by race, ethnicity, state, age, marital status, etc. To make it easy, let’s look at the top state alphabetically, Alabama.
According to Table 13, there were 3,504 abortions to whites, 5,268 to blacks, and 258 for other. But that’s not all. They broke ethnicity (Hispanic vs non Hispanic) down separately in Table 14 which says there were 1,747 abortions to Hispanic women, and 7,312 to non Hispanic women. This makes it look like a lot of Hispanic women identified as white when they asked race, which obviously greatly inflates the number of abortions credited to white women. Strange. Almost like they were trying to hide something by avoiding the traditional white/black/Hispanic breakdown. Chances are, at least 1,500 of those 3,504 “whites” were actually Hispanic, but whatever.
Let’s take the conservative approach to our math and say that all those 3,504 abortions for “white” women were indeed Southern white women of Anglo-Celtic extraction, even though that’s obviously not true. That gives us an absolute max figure of 3,504 abortions to white women and 5,268 abortions to black women in Alabama in 2012. That means 1.5 niglets getting aborted for every one “white” baby getting aborted in a state that according to the 2010 census had 3,275,394 whites an 1,251,311 blacks. So that means that in the state of Alabama there are more than twice as many whites as blacks but blacks are getting 1.5 times as many abortions total. Alabama negroes are getting abortions at about 4 times the rate of Alabama whites, even with a lot of Hispanics getting counted as white. This alone is enough for Alabamans to decide legal abortion ain’t so bad… Winning.
But there’s more than that. We know that Hispanics are getting abortions at somewhere in between the rate of whites and blacks overall, so it’s not just 1.5 black babies per “white” baby, it’s more like (1.5 black + x Hispanic + y other)/ white. (where we know that x>1). Now Wikipedia says there were 185,602 Hispanics in Alabama in 2010, but since they are migrants, there are likely to be more men than women, and since so many are illegal it makes no sense to even bother with what the census says. Anyway, I’m not tired of winning.
Now as I said earlier, we can tell that a lot of Hispanics must have been identifying as white, so let’s call them HWIAW (Hispanics who identified as white). That gives us (1.5 black + x Hispanic + y other) / (white – HWIAW). Still not tired of winning.
But there’s more. All the abortion stats that I’m aware of only go by race of mother and do not tell whether the child was mixed or not. Obviously many of them are. So the formula goes more like this (1.5 black + x Hispanic + y other + mudshark) / (white – HWIAW – mudshark). Still not tired of winning.
Wait. There’s more. According to Table 15 there were 1,105 abortions to married women and 7, 950 abortions to unmarried women. This is much higher than can be explained by the high rate of black/Hispanic abortions. Obviously white single women are getting abortions at a much higher rate than white married women. Now I’m not calling every single mother a tramp, but obviously tramps are overrepresented among those who find themselves single and pregnant. I cannot prove it conclusively based on the data available, but the data strongly suggests that even among white women pregnant with a white baby, those who seek abortions are generally lower quality women compared to white women at large. So the formula goes (1.5 black + x Hispanic + y other + mudshark + tramp) / (white – HWIAW – mudshark – tramp). Still not tired of winning.
We know that a lot of Down Syndrome (or any other detectable defect) babies are being aborted because there are fewer of them being born than the ages of the mothers tells us to expect. The test is done as early as week 10. People can try to deny it if they want to, but obviously the presence of a DS baby in the home is going to make it less likely that a couple is going to try for one more. Also, women who know they will have the option to abort a pregnancy if it tests positive will be more likely to try for one more. The least we can say is that a DS baby is a genetic dead end and is unlikely to make any big discoveries, be a thought leader, or lead any armies, so the abortion of a DS baby is not a significant loss to our race. No matter how many women swear their DS babies are “soooo precious” and “such a blessing” I’m going to take the conservative position and just say that an aborted DS baby is not a racial loss. So we end up with (1.5 black + x Hispanic + y other + mudshark + tramp) / (white – HWIAW – mudshark – tramp – Down’s).
Once you look at it this way you see that the loss to the Dixian race from abortion is really, really small and the gains from reducing the brown population are very big. One might even support abortion based on eugenics alone, even if there were zero nonwhites in Dixie. Even in an all white country, you only have to ask yourself:
“Is abortion more common among high quality women or low quality women?”
But we ARE in a demographic war so it is very much about what effect abortion does for the white:mud ratio. If it reduces the number of muds by a very large amount while reducing the number of whites by a very small amount, then it is a good thing, even better if those whites being sacrificed to the cause are of lower average quality than the racial average.
Now some may say that it’s unconscionable to swap baby killings as an act of war. They may say something like “A baby isn’t a soldier.” but to those people I would ask a few questions:
“How old does an individual have to be before it is acceptable to sacrifice, knowing that the numbers play out and the sacrifice reaps great dividends?”
“Is it morally superior to send a healthy man of proved merit and health and in whom the nation has invested heavily in public education and military training to die in place of a baby of below average merit, of unproven health, and in whom the nation is not yet heavily invested?”
“Why was God OK with infanticide in the Old Testament, as atheists so often like to remind us?”
“What did the American colonists/frontiersmen do with all the Indian babies when they killed the adult Indians? How could we have attained a white country if they had not killed them or left them to die?”
“If taking warfare to the womb is not acceptable, are nuclear weapons off limits also, since they would cause an epidemic of miscarriages among those that didn’t get killed?”
Now this does not mean that morally superior options to abortion could not be implemented if we were a sovereign nation. If we were sovereign today we could drastically reduce the very demand for abortion by proactively sterilizing certain people. But we are not a sovereign nation yet and sterilizing those people is not an option we have on the table today. If such a proposal were made in Congress, the shitlibs would scream EUGENICS! Abortion is obviously eugenic in effect, but shitlibs demand it as WOMEN’S RIGHTS! I say let them have it and their free birth control too. If your enemy is shooting himself in the foot, then for Heaven’s sake stay out of his way! After all, we don’t expect stray cats and dogs to pay for their own fertility control, so I don’t know why we expect muds and white tramps to do it. As nationalists, we should be stumping for more abortion clinics in the South.
But I’m going to have to confess that abortion on demand is incredibly unpopular among our target audience. The least I can say is that we should try to redpill as many Dixians as we can on who is getting the abortions. If the political winds shift more favorably toward abortion at the popular level, then we can decisively go with keeping it legal, but if we simply cannot get Dixie on board with it, then our best bet is to not mention it at all or just play the typical politician with his finger in the wind so he can tell his voters whatever they want to hear to get maximum support. As much as people signal against abortion, I really don’t think it’s a hill very many are willing to die on. Abortion has been legal per SCOTUS since 1973 and I don’t think anybody has come to Southern Nationalism because of it. My bet is that most have come or will come for the same reasons I have:
- Existential threat to our race.
- The war on Christianity. (including Islamization)
- Everything else combined comes in at a very distant third.
Perhaps some empirical study could be done to prove what people really care about the most, but it’s pretty unlikely anything is going to trump our collective self preservation. I think the smartest move is for us to “run” on the first two items in this list and play down almost everything else that there might be significant division on. We might do well to add language to the ticket, but I don’t think many Dixians feel much pressure in that department yet, so it’s unlikely to motivate like it would for the Boers in South Africa.