I don’t really have much choice but to address this, because it’s now become too intrusive to ignore. So here we have an article published by Radix discussing why being against abortion is a ‘trap’, and how the right should support abortion. What I’m about to do is criticize the idea that this author, Aylmer Fisher, is right-anything. This is a political critique of a particular essay and a particular trend that I’m not the only one taking notice of. It should not be interpreted as a criticism of any broader group of individuals not directly referenced, and anyone who does interpret it as such after I went to painstaking lengths to avoid that, is being deliberately annoying. The article generated controversy, and I am presenting this side of that controversy, so consider it debate rather than drama. I’ll take it piece by piece:
“Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations.”
To start, what does this even mean? When he uses the term ‘meaning’ this is either one of two things. Either subjective meaning, which has no relevance to anybody other than the person holding it, much less any impact on truth. Or he is speaking of objective meaning, a metaphysical description, and how meaning in life is only given through ‘connections’ to other people is never really explained. What ‘meaning’ could temporal, finite creatures on an infinitesimal speck of dust in the wide universe bestow upon me? From where did these more evolved apes get such power? I jest of course, the author obviously is referring to subjective meaning here, but as I pointed out, this is the equivalent of not saying anything.
“First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic.”
Okay, so the author then gives a reasonable amount of data on the kinds of women in the United States that have abortions, and as expected, they are typically lower-income individuals, and minorities. This is an argument that is central to the position of eugenic abortionists. It’s premise is that from the inception of abortion as legal practice until now, it has helped keep the majority of the population white, therefore whites ‘owe’ the practice of abortion, and are obligated to keep it running. This logic fails if the starting premise is that those large minorities shouldn’t be here in the first place, and ought to all be removed to their place of origin or cordoned off with their own state. When you favor that position, the question of whether these groups abort or not becomes a political non-issue, like the taxes in Cape Verde. Has abortion hindered the birth of minority children? Yes. Has abortion massively increased the amount of unsafe sex, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and irresponsible partner decisions among all races? Yes. It’s a get-out-of-jail-free card, and it grants women autonomy they shouldn’t have.
Also, something has slipped here. Notice that Fisher doesn’t care about the perfectly healthy, normal white babies that were aborted. Why? Because they are outnumbered by minority children. You see, he doesn’t even give members of his race any intrinsic value, they are numerical objects in an equation, and if the equation balances in a way he likes, then it’s fine that they are subtracted. Reign of quantity. Sign of the times. Guénon saw this asshole coming almost 100 years ago.
“When an intelligent, responsible woman does have an abortion”
This sentence doesn’t even compute. The act of having an abortion renders a woman immediately unintelligent and irresponsible. What in God’s name could be more irresponsible than escaping one’s innate duties as a mother by killing the child she’s responsible for? White knighting at its finest.
“The alt Right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like “equality” and “human rights,” especially as bases for policy.”
What he really wants to say here is ‘morality’, but instead uses these Liberal buzzwords as stand-ins when they are entirely different things. Morality existed before ‘equality’ came into vogue and ‘human rights’ was even coined. Most intelligent anti-abortionists argue from morality, that we have a moral obligation not to murder innocent people, and a further moral duty not to murder innocent people who are our own kin. I’m not sure why the author doesn’t just straight up say he is in favor of murder when the victim is somebody he doesn’t regard as eugenically valuable. Why is that hard to say? Do these advocates lack the testicular fortitude to just go straight-up edgelord and declare that all morality is BS, Dylan Roof is innocent, etc.? That’s what Nietzsche did, and the author does allude to him.
Maybe the author does have a kind of morality, a twisted utilitarian morality. Hint: utilitarianism isn’t exactly a ‘Traditional’ concept, it’s a little more ‘Modern’. Just to clarify what the Right has stood for since its inception: morality grounded in the nature of the divine and relayed to humanity through direct revelation and natural law (Gnon if you will). The author is as far from that as any card-carrying communist.
“The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community.”
… I mean, this is just bizarre. The ‘fetus’ not only has a metaphysical connection to the woman and man who actually created it by fruit of their copulation, but a physical connection to the mother since she sustains it. This is akin to saying that Siamese twins have no connection to each other. The baby is also presumably of some ethnic group, so is by definition, kin, at least to somebody. The author asserts that meaning in life is given by our connections with people, our kin, but says that unborn children don’t have that ‘connection’. This leads me to believe his idea of ‘connection’ involves social interaction. The reason we shouldn’t care about unborn white children is because we don’t interact with them and they are therefore meaningless to us.
Question: then why should I give a shit about all the white people I’ve never met nor will meet?
By this point I’m wondering how many more asinine statements are going to appear.
“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.”
This is the fallacy of trying to invalidate a position by pointing to dumb stuff that those who hold the position do. Guess what, most people in history haven’t killed their children… and most people in history also haven’t adopted kids from Africa.
“When the parent-child bond does not exist for a pregnant woman, society has no business stepping in.”
I want a serious question answered here. What is Fisher’s argument that women who cannot experience the organic connection they ought to have with their children should be allowed to live? He doesn’t think morality is real, people only have eugenic value. What is the eugenic value of a woman who cannot bring children into the world and raise them? I could write an entire essay on why the root problem here is that society conditions such women to feel that way by instilling in them the values of the Modern World, but keep this in mind: the pregnant woman who Fisher describes here is as valueless as her unborn child, under his system.
“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.”
There we have it, the truth comes out at last. The only, and I mean only thing that people like Fisher care about is the racial angle. It all comes down to the demographic problem facing ‘whites’. So, here is how you know there is nothing rightist about such a position. There was NO such threat when rightism emerged as a response to the French Revolution. In real terms, this threat has only really emerged within the last 50 years, and yet somehow it is the epicenter, the locus, the be-all-and-end-all of truly authentic right wing thought. So, I have another question, what actually is the difference between Fisher and the 1488 crowd? They may differ in their mode of rhetoric, and perhaps Fisher doesn’t have a swastika tattoo, nor does he think concentration camps are necessarily good, but both seem to agree that the only real problem we face is the racial one. I can’t really go after Kyle Hunt for this idiocy and not call out this first time writer at Radix. I’d be a hypocrite.
“It is as if pro-life identitarians want to force women be wives and mothers by leaving them no other choice.”
They should have no other choice. What exactly is Fisher smoking? Just a paragraph up he says “women’s liberation has been a disaster for our society”. That’s what women’s liberation is. the allowance of agency for women to do anything they want, be anything their heart desires. Much like Sargon of Akkad, Fisher does show support for the underlying assumptions of Feminism, while maybe just thinking Laci Green takes it too far. The right wing position, the Reactionary position, is that the high-time preference of women is justification for removing from them the agency to make big decisions, like abandoning the purpose they were designed for. Yes, I don’t want that to be a choice for women, and the enforcement mechanism for that takes the form of cultural pressures, familial pressures, and law.
“There is no higher calling in life than continuing the species, and raising happy, healthy children who will be a benefit to society.”
This is completely bereft of any value whatsoever. Continuing the ‘species’. Yeah, I’m programmed to do that, but it isn’t a high calling, no higher than when insects have sex. The meaning in the world comes from our relation to that which is beyond ourselves, and society is valuable insofar as it reflects the nature of this superior realm. Other than that it’s just a curiosity inside a cosmic car crash, Also, children are not intrinsically valuable because of their ‘benefit to society’. If this is their only source of value, then the article really has ceased to be about abortion at all. If your five year old can’t get good grades, better cut his throat and try again. Children are intrinsically valuable to parents specifically because they are pieces of us that can outlast us, and continue a legacy with all the value you can accrue through your actions here on earth. Raising them successfully aids in this process, and it is only then by extension that such well-raised children benefit those of their kin around them with what they can provide.
If the motivation for having kids in a society is to “benefit” the society, then something has already gone fantastically wrong. This is a Maoist incentive for big families (which preceded the One-Child Policy by the way).
So, that is my treatment of the essay in specific. I’m adding this addendum to bring it all together and make clear exactly what is going on here. There is a substratum of dissident right thinking (and I use that in the very broad sense of the popular opposition to Conservatism on the grounds of its failures and ideological concessions) that is entryist. This isn’t the active, malicious, and buffoonish entryism that I described when I dissected Kyle Hunt’s views, this is something a little different.
There are certain people who have a grievance against the radical left, but acquiesce to post-Enlightenment thought. For Conservatives (at least today), it’s the size and scope of federal power and areas of very obvious degeneracy. For people like Aylmer Fisher, its demographics. His approach to the world is identical to leftism in one key way, it does not presuppose any value but what we make. The Liberals have built in this vacuum an empty god of ‘progress’, while Fisher has built an empty god of ‘the white majority’. Without higher principles, it means nothing. In fact, a race that functioned under the kind of diabolical amoralism he suggests would be as worthy of survival as the Canaanites, who we don’t hear much from anymore.
Some may mistake this commentary, and think that I’m trying to police the morality of people who identify as right wing. Nothing could be further from the truth. I actually agree that nobody should be doing that. When revelations about some stupid personal blog post that Bryce Laliberte had written ages ago concerning same-sex attraction surfaced, and he was subsequently bullycided from his blog, I said that the entire thing was ridiculous. Those who dig into people’s history to find some personal problem with them are frankly the lowest scum that occupy the edgysphere. They aren’t interested in ideas, only personalities.
But, just to take another example at random, when someone underlines his own works with “Aryan Futurism, Heavy Metal Entheogenic Mysticism, and pitiless hordes of adolescent warriors in rainbow thongs“, and puts forth the virtue of faggotry, that is something entirely different. That has to do with political ideology, not personal morality. The personal morality of political thinkers doesn’t bother me in most cases, and others have dedicated considerable time to elucidating such a well-advised position. It is correct to say that we shouldn’t impose a strict ideological dogma upon rightist intellectual circles today. It’s not possible, and it doesn’t serve any concrete purpose. However, when someone strikes at the heart of the foundation of rightist thought by embracing nihilism and applying it to any number of issues, it ought be addressed with the utmost scrutiny.
The two things have to be separated, in order that we can address not immorality on the right (which I don’t care about), but amoral counter-signaling on the right, which only serves to tell everyone how edgy you are because anyone who isn’t a nihilistic Nietzschean is of course a ‘cuck’. Those who think that race is the only issue of any significance, are just as bad as those who think the Jewish Question is the only issue of any real significance. Shiksa Goddess, meet Aylmer Fisher.
The Right as it has been conceived accurately from its foundation until today, has been concerned with the organic realities of human nature and the civilization which extends from that nature proper. It has not embraced nihilism, which can only be described as poison. Mothers murdering their children can never be justified in organic terms, it is an explicit, satanic rejection of everything healthy and good, an inversion of the organic order. I don’t care if you justify it with a serious swastika or a pseudo-intellectual appeal to an unrealistic “muhh racial purity”, and worse yet if you’re too cowardly to follow things through to their logical conclusion, that it is in fact dysgenic not to buy a revolver and shoot black 5 year olds in the face. The result is the same, you completely misapprehend the depth and scope of the right wing position, its values, and what it holds dear. By all means, if you think in the way that Fisher does, if your world is as clinical, numeric, and uninteresting as his sounds, then just call yourself a dissenting leftist. Senator Joe Manchin (WV) thinks the left is wrong on guns. Why not just say you think the left is wrong on race, but that this encapsulates your disagreement?
AntiDem was right in saying that due to the increasing viciousness of the left’s holiness purging, many of its ideological acolytes have been confused into thinking they must be the heretical caricatures that they are painted as. It’s interesting, since although Stalin had Trotsky killed, there’s really no doubt both were Marxists. Come to think of it, I’m sure Trotsky’s last thoughts when he was having an ice axe buried in his head were not “Damn! I was an enemy of the revolution all along!”
No, we haven’t fallen into a ‘trap’ at all. On the contrary, you’ve walked into our camp ground with a bear trap from the Progressive wilderness on your leg, arrogantly telling us things are absolutely fine. I’ll note that this ridiculous attack on those opposed to abortion was an entirely unprovoked and poorly landed first strike.
Those who look at a dead child and state with no uncertainty, “the mother dindu nuffin!” suffer from the same kind of spiritual/moral autism that leftists do. They can’t see evil when staring into its ugly, black, remorseless eyes; there is something most definitely defective about them, worse than physical blindness. So, Aylmer, when we talk about dysgenics, what happens if your name comes up?