648. The taming power of the small (XIII)
As an upshot from the active volcano that is the abortion debate, you sometimes see the opinion voiced that legal abortion in America is a boon because the population group that mainly utilises it for birth control is the blacks—hence, some say, it is a eugenic development; and, indeed, people who voice this opinion often crow over the procedure’s racially selective nature—even suggest it would be a mistake to prohibit abortion at all. Such views are not noble, especially when expressed in a resentful way—as they usually are—and, in any case, are wrong.
The argument is that abortion is utilised as birth control by people who are less intelligent because intelligence correlates with foresight and self-control; if you do not have the foresight and self-control to use the myriad birth control options on offer, you are probably not very intelligent—hence you fall back on abortion, hence abortion mainly removes less intelligent progeny and so has a eugenic effect. This position misunderstands what abortion is really about in the contemporary West—and the confusion is amplified because the Christian anti-abortion camp pitches everything about the debate in emotional terms, and so obscures why abortion is legal in the way it is. Abortion is legal, as with no-fault divorce, to undermine men: it puts all the power in the woman’s hands—hence, “My body, my choice.” So, if the woman has a petulant fit, she can abort—or threaten to abort—the baby over the man’s head. Whether the man wants the child or not is irrelevant: the point is that everything comes down to the woman’s caprice—the West is feminised, socialism is feminism, and so abortion must be legal in this way.
The situation in which men are disempowered in this way is inherently dysgenic; even if the more eugenic groups rarely utilise abortion, the threat is there—and the threat influences their decision-making in a dysgenic way; so abortion as currently practiced must be seen as one element in a wider battery of dysgenic tendencies in the West. For more intelligent people, abortion is like the atomic bomb—it would almost certainly never be used, yet the woman reserves the right to drop the “ultimate sanction” if she feels like it; and the man has no deterrent—obviously, this changes the relationship dynamic.
This is fairly tedious to repeat, but everything in the West is topsy-turvy: Black Lives Matter kills and maims black people—creates a situation where more violence occurs; LGBT damages homosexuals—facilitates a situation whereby Aids and Monkeypox can thrive; and feminism hurts and damages women—leaves them poor, bitter, and sterile. All “repressive” right-wing measures improve the situation for all these groups; however, it is impossible to put this forward rhetorically because rhetoric is a left-wing domain—workable measures feel bad, offend narcissism.
You can generate pity for a black man from the ghetto who kills five people in a drive-by—produce a BBC Storyville special about his “struggle for justice” and how he never learned to read, and has just started to read now (Harry Potter—tugs on those white feminist heartstrings). However, if you said that what is really required is for such men to be publicly hanged in the ghetto—in an orderly way, with men in black uniforms and a band that beats a solemn tattoo as the prisoner is led, in a dignified manner, to the gallows—then people would go crazy and say you are a monster; even though to do so would demonstrably save black lives and improve living conditions for American blacks. Yet, of course, nobody cares about their conditions really—they are chips in a political game, expendable.
So to draw back: abortion is about the destruction of male authority—and which group suffered family collapse first? Black Americans, since they were most exposed to the state and its policies. To restrict abortion in current conditions is a victory for male authority and consequently a positive development.