Ed Dutton: Women who get abortions: The eugenic argument

15 replies
  1. Icknay
    Icknay says:

    Indeed, there are circumstances where women should have the option to abort their fetus, such as for example where they have been raped, or it’s economically not feasible for them and are single without a spouse. Having said that though, aborting after 45 days into the pregnancy is absolutely absurd. The clump of cells physically develop into an actual being.

    • Really Realist
      Really Realist says:

      There are no circumstances where one person should be murdered for the crime of another, or where one person should be murdered because this person is inconvenient.

      Just think: there are circumstances in which you support the murder of fetal infants, the most innocent and defenseless among us. How did you become so conformed to today’s rot? How did you become such a monster? Seriously think about this.

  2. Really Realist
    Really Realist says:

    Abortions aren’t merely “had,” “gotten,” or “performed.” They’re committed, inflicted, perpetrated. Similarly, it’s to be called fetal infanticide, not merely “abortion.” And they’re fetal infants, not merely “fetuses.” The whitewashing of this horror must end.

    Fetal infanticide is a crime, a crime of the highest magnitude against the most innocent and defenseless people among us. The ongoing holocaust of legalized fetal infanticide must end. It’s killing millions upon millions of innocent fetal infants, and it’s cursing our lands. We’ll continue to rot until this supreme horror ends.

  3. Vince
    Vince says:

    After seeing the “fruits” of abortion…..the trafficking of baby body parts, bizarre “medical” experimentation, the use of abortion as birth control, permanently impaired fertility in women who have had abortions but later want kids, it is very clear that abortion in all stages of pregnancy and all circumstances should be completely outlawed except in the most extreme cases where the mother’s life is in danger. In this day and age there are many, many forms of contraception, not to mention the CHOICE to practice personal responsibility and self control.

    If you look at the first legalized abortion laws in history, and the Bolsheviks (past and present) who are the promoters and cheerleaders of abortion, we should all be catching on by now what abortion is really about.

  4. David Schmitt
    David Schmitt says:

    I somehow expect, counterintuitively to be sure in the present climate of ideologies, that if societies eliminate abortion, that populations and demographics will actually stabilize nicely in terms of carrying capacity and harmonious conditions. Economies with thrive. Technology can be introduced in a rational and measured manner and that the psychological and medical well-being of people will improve. Moreover, there will be a natural and just flourishing of everyone in general and intelligent and talented people will not have their reproductive potential artificially and maliciously suppressed.

    And it will be good for White people when the intellect and conversation become the basis for governing and enterprising. But it is not a zero-sum game.

  5. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    In America, the women who have by far the highest rates of abortion are black. They abort five times oftener than Whites do. Therefore, since blacks are the qroup with the lowest average IQ—a full 15 points lower than that of Whites—abortion in America has materially helped limit the size of the lowest-IQ American demographic. Add to this the fact that, as TOO’s “Recent Research on Race Realism” informs us, blacks also have the highest rates of antisocial personality and inability to consider consequences. When you do, it becomes all the more clear that Margaret Sanger was wise.

    And I haven’t even mentioned blacks’ stratospheric rates of violent crime.

    Last evening on Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens said what I’ve been saying for some time—that but for abortion the black-American population would be twice as large as it is. Abortion has filtered 20 million blacks out of the pipeline; and, if you factor in the progeny these blacks would’ve produced with no abortion to counterbalance, the present population of 40+ million wouldn’t be 60+ mill but probably 80+ mill—at least. Owens complains that most of the abortion clinics are in or near black areas, thanks to the fact that racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood and wanted to limit black numbers. Hear Owens for yourself.

    With a present population of 40+ mill, blacks inflict about 1480 violent crimes on Whites per day. PER DAY. (Amazing, that though I’ve cited this figure from DoJ stats here before, NO ONE appears to bat an eyelash, nor says “Can such numbers be real?!” whereas I’m appalled 24/7….) That’s 85% of the violent crime involving blacks and Whites. In the study “The Color of Crime” it’s calculated that, given blacks’ smaller numbers and their rate of offending, a black is 27 times likelier to attack a White than vice-versa. https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/

    With this present level of population, millions of blacks help elect the federal Marxists now devastating the USA, not to mention the black mayors who wreck cities, or the DAs who abet crime. 87% of black voters voted against Trump in 2020.

    That’s at 40+ mill. What if there were 80+ mill? There certainly could be that many in a fairly short time, given black rates of pregnancy. Is it illogical to think there could also be 2960 black-on-White violent crimes per day? Ever have a lovely daughter come home with her front teeth knocked because a black savage has sucker-punched her? If you have, DoJ stats acquire flesh and blood.

    And won’t there be many more millions of votes for the Leftists, all of whom are anti-White in varying degrees?

    Not only blacks’ quantity but their quality would be affected. Larger black families would mean more poverty, less attention given to each child, etc., suggesting that there’d be more blacks who are more discontented, more given to crime, more resentful and envious of Whites, more fertile soil in which anti-White demagogues like Sharpton could plant seeds of hate. Further, women who get many abortions tend to be less self-controlled (otherwise they wouldn’t get pregnant out of wedlock so often): heaven help us if all their pregnancies come to term and their genes are maximally inherited….

    Besides, aren’t White advocates concerned about Whites becoming a minority in America? Will 40+ mill more blacks increase the Euroamerican portion of the total pop, or leave it where it is? And why would burgeoning non-White numbers within America be less threatening than burgeoning non-Whites crossing a border?

    Said it before and will say it again: It’s not a healthy function of organisms to protect the reproduction of enemies wreaking damage on them. It bespeaks a self-destructive tendency, if not a suicidal one in the final analysis.

    And again, the heartbreaking irony is that blacks’ self-culling has been something THEY do, something redounding to our benefit notwithstanding their hatred. They do it freely, without any risk, cost or effort on our part! All that Whites need do to retain this valuable degree of protection—this inadvertent service done us by those who typically resent and blame us—is let sleeping dogs lie: DO NOTHING and let abortion stand.

    Cf. “White Partisanship & Roe vs. Wade,” https://theeuropeanfamily.com/f/white-partisanship-roe-vs-wade Nearly all the salient considerations are there. I beg Rightists to examine them at length.

    Why would White Conservatives insist on shooting themselves in the foot? Essentially because Europe-descended people swallowed a toxic superstition (beware of Jews bearing gifts), which impairs—and certainly was meant to impair—Europeans’ instincts of self-protection and self-preservation.

    • David Schmitt
      David Schmitt says:

      Your analysis would be spot on if we were discussing gerbils artificially kept in a giant cage and supplied with a non-limiting amount of food and water.

      And please understand that I get your point. I read Malthus as far back as high school.

      And your analysis is correct for human populations as well if you strip humans of agency. Indeed, that is what the oligarchs running the world, those people who can top off their piggy banks with a printing press in their basement (debasement), are trying to do to Whites as well as to Blacks. They are trying to turn us psychologically and morally into unthinking animals without agency.

      Of course, you understand this. TV and centralized, Marxist educational systems have accomplished a large fraction of their goal. Many of my real-world neighbors, White people–people that I otherwise like very much or could like very much–have been reduced to reacting like animals in a Skinner box.

      If somehow enough of us who are significantly free of the psychologically powerful controlling mechanism can manage to educate ourselves (via resources like T.O.O.), to communicate with each other (your pick), and are able to “scratch at the ground for enough potatoes” to create an alternative banking system—we can break out of our gerbil cage.

      The problems that you describe that are based in racial traits are real. In the case of Black Americans and the maliciously imported, instrumentalized 3rd-worlders, they are being kept and fed like gerbils in a cage and are being used to demographically disrupt the human systems of ethnonations—or what could revert to nations with a predominant ethnic structure of a few races. Again, nothing new to people at this site.

      But removal of the centralized welfare and banking state in its present form is necessary to restore a normally functioning society. In fact, the influence of the former as a weaponized tool of the latter is so odious, I want to call it ‘malfare’ instead of ‘welfare’.

      I envision, and perhaps this is where we would have to creatively discuss what kind of liberated socio-economic system it would take to receive our aspirations for a restabilized, healthy world. And as a sidenote, left to itself unperturbed by “The Controllers,” population numbers will naturally check themselves via social structures. Properly raising a family is actually a check on populations. If there were to be global institutions and actors permitted to remain, they could work their magic of stabilizing populations by humanly healthy, cognitively flourishing and liberating methods. This is difficult to see in a sex-propagandized environment.

      Ultimately, this is also a spiritual matter and a religious matter. We know how to freely regulate ourselves sexually and reproductively—even without contraception, let alone abortion. And if there were not downward forces on us from a hostile elite that does not want for this to happen, this would quickly re-establish itself.

      I had better stop here and let you or others critique and respond, if you would like.

        • Lucius Vanini
          Lucius Vanini says:

          DAVID SCHMITT–
          Without having given much thought to banking systems, at least where White well-being is concerned, I can say in any case that omitting to oppose Roe V Wade is effortless and leaves us free to pursue solutions with full commitment, be they related to banking or anything else. Meanwhile, as long as Roe V Wade stands, BLACKS—people who typically hate us—provide us with a very real and substantial measure of protection, both physical and political, via the self-culling which abortion achieves.

          AGAIN, a doubling of the black-American population (or even a lesser rise in it, if bible-thumper states like Missouri, with large black numbers, vote to end abortion), would almost surely mean a doubling of the number of black-on-White attacks and of black electoral power. What’s the harm of doing nothing if it prevents that?

          I’m increasingly aware that pro-White choices can be successfully recommended only to Whites whose instincts of self-protection have remained intact. Otherwise it’s like exhorting the Eloi (of H.G. Wells’ THE TIME MACHINE) to take measures against the Morlocks’ depredations. Or more than that: it’s not only futile but likely to provoke condemnation, once the deadly altruism gene has become dominant….

          Cf. “Our Deadly Altruism Gene,” https://theeuropeanfamily.com/f/our-deadly-altruism-gene

  6. bruno
    bruno says:

    In today’s era recreational sex is quite prevalent. This is a decadent society. a significant number of youth hump one another like dogs. When I was a child one didn’t know anyone who was divorced. Later on, one person with parents had been divorced was known.

    I have a close friend that plays a musical instrument in Christian churches. He’s done this for about a decade. According to him, people are still getting married in that environment. Overall, regardless of intellectual capacity it’s very dangerous for anyone to marry in Western society. Prof. Dutton is correct about character and (2) gals not wishing to have their careers put on the back burner. There’s another factor. That pertains a lot of narcissistic females don’t wish to be disfigured for nine months.

    Just about all of us know of men who are successful in life and are intellectually astute. They married a gal that seemed to have a moral compass. After 10, 15 or 20 years they lose everything in divorce. They become men without a house, are harmed or destroyed economically and psychologically have been brutalized.

    If you wish to be honest with yourself you can look around and see that over 50% of your friends are from a divorced environment. The major problem is youth and the variable of love. After a certain amount of years pass the hot and heavy compassion disappears. It’s replaced by more intelligent reasoning. It’s true that decent people of character create a solid bond. Yet, are you to ignore the overwhelming evidence? Most deem they are the exception.

    Today about half the professors are intellectually dysfunctional and they don’t have the value of those who legitimately earn their status. However, even among those that are normal a significant number are divorced. The problem referred to might be a major contributor to the future dissolving of EuroMan’s civilization.

    Prof. Dutton’s books are a worthy buy. Consider testing the waters of his pen.

  7. Brian S. Rockford
    Brian S. Rockford says:

    Mainstream Galtonian eugenics was about conception not abortion, reducing future pain not inflicting present pain, life not death. The liberal liars vilify humanitarian eugenics by linking it with mass-murder of helpless groups. The right note was set by Julian Huxley not Adolf Hitler. However, male sterilization would be a better remedy for African overpopulation than “female education” – reduce the adult murder rate as well as infant mortality agony.

  8. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    Sterilize black males to impede black population growth, thereby diminishing black crime and, most vitally, the number of their violent crimes against Whites? And, while we’re at it, precluding millions more votes for the Marxists (since blacks overwhelmingly support Leftist politics)?

    Why that’s a brilliant idea! Hurrah!

    Now try to get it done. Who’ll bell that cat—we who can’t even get blacks punished for burning down businesses and committing mass robbery in looting stores?

    But—in the real world itself—there’s a way in which black numbers have been kept at half of what they’d otherwise be. Instead of rivaling in number Brazil’s 90 million blacks (and its yearly average of about 60,000 homicides, overwhelmingly black), the black-American pop stands at 40ish million.

    I repeat: that check on black numbers already exists. It’s called abortion, and we don’t have to impose it on the blacks: they do it themselves, with very substantial incidental benefit to us. Not that the present black pop isn’t of immense harm to Whites. But it could certainly be worse—much worse—and would’ve been worse but for Roe V Wade, and WILL almost surely be if abortion is rolled back….

    If sterilizing blacks would yield benefits but isn’t easily implementable, how could you not value something already yielding similar benefits? Why would you see it thrown away, since it’s not only already in place but doesn’t require any struggle or risk to be kept in place—only a letting things be? Why, because of the “present pain” involved?

    You want a conflict without pain?! We’re in a war. People talk about a race war as though it hasn’t already started. But it has. Just with the ongoing epidemic of violence it’s brought on us, black America has waged bloody war on White Americans for decades. We’re talking about millions of violent crimes, thousands of them murders.

    White America, frankly, hardly merits preservation if black fetuses are more important to it than a greater degree of White well-being. Especially since so many of those fetuses become menaces in manifold ways. All’s fair in love and war, and if Euroamerica isn’t equal to facing that, it may well deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs, eh?

  9. Sanjay
    Sanjay says:

    My post is related to Edward Dutton’s work, but not to this specific video, so I will completely understand if it’s not approved:

    My review of Edward Dutton’s latest show at https://www.bitchute.com/video/VPmwjA6XixJk/

    The political left consists of two parts: the Ashkenazi leaders, and genetically psychopathic Gentile followers, where the Gentiles’ only goal is individual resource acquisition. Of course, followers of Professor MacDonald know what the Ashkenazi motivation is.

    The host again used the phrase “conspiracy theory” when the correct term is “conspiracy hypothesis.”

    The host then says that the scientists around the year 2010 AD were more honest because Hollywood Ashkenazim promoted a message of the importance of Christianity and being honest and following the Golden Rule. However, being altruistic as such is a matter of the innate behavioral neurons of Sympathy, Empathy, and Guilt. You can’t environmentally increase or decrease the potency of these neural systems. The host seems to rely heavily on the power of Cultural Marxism.

    Also, why would higher “social trust” be directly a biological consequence of higher intelligence? I would suspect the opposite – higher intelligent people can better uncover the deceptions of the elites and the psychopathic nature of R-Selected population groups. Plus, an innate predisposition towards trusting the random person in the world without prejudgement/intellectual analyzing would be a direct consequence of having high innate Altruism (Sympathy/Empathy/Guilt).

    Also, “conservatives” today are not genetically the same as the population that existed right before the Enlightenment which was a peak Group Selected state. Conservatives today are relatively Individually Selected, but to a lesser degree than contemporary European Liberals. The host keeps on confusing European populations of today with those right before the Enlightenment.

    The host keeps on coming up with poetic words for Psychopathology, such as “Narcissism,” Machiavellianism,” etc. The basic underlying biological trait for all these poetic descriptions is low Altruism (low Sympathy, Empathy, and Guilt), perhaps combined with low Industriousness to form the composite trait of Psychopathology.

    The host then talks about the hormone shifting hypothesis. Does he know if the results of this study has been replicated several times, and accurately without faulty methods or fraud? Also, why would this hypothesis be true for K-Selected humans? Simple animals might benefit from frequent hormone shifting to confuse other neurologically simple animals, but a highly K-Selected human group is very fine tuned to a harsh and predictable environment who would lose fitness if they kept on randomly shifting their hormones, no? Thus, if hormones are indeed shifting, then perhaps it has to do with environmentally induced effects.

    Also, are you all aware that Dr. Woodley of Menie has launched his own personal website and has already uploaded two new presentations on his new YouTube channel?

    I don’t read any of Pat Buchanan’s writings because he is dishonest by hiding the true motivation for all foreign policy: Ashkenazi ethnic interests.

    “Racist” is a meaningless word, so I believe it would be logical for the host to never use this word and simply state that he can’t discuss a specific issue unless an objective word is used, such as “Ethnocentrism.”

    When mobs come out to violently defend Cultural Marxist positions, my understanding is that these are actually professional mobs who don’t necessarily care either way about the positions in question, but are being paid by the Ashkenazim to carry out the violence. Such professional mobs would be companies such as ANTIFA and BLM. Perhaps even members of private militaries are being hired, such as the companies contracted by the Pentagon.

    What is a “negative” feeling? Is that the proper terminology to use? Does the host mean feelings that are typical of R-Selected people? Also, is “jealousy” a real emotion? Isn’t this just anger? You are angry at someone for having resources that you desire. Actually, jealousy could be a composite emotion consisting of both anger and low Altruism; if one is feeling jealous towards an individual who is Altruistic and has not sought to harm the jealous person, then the fact that the person is still feeling jealous would also indicate low Altruism.

    What actually is “introversion?” I am interested in the underlying neurological level factors. One possibility is that an “introvert” in question is actually an R-Selected person and thus low in Altruism and does not value the company of others. Or, it could be that a specific “introvert” in question is just actually high in socially induced Fear and this is the reason that he avoids people.

    What is “low impulse control?” What are the underlying neurological level behavioral traits? Low Industriousness? Low intelligence? Low fear? Depression? A very high sexual drive?

    Given the fact that most Europeans are now relatively Individually Selected, then if they are publicly showing support for Ukraine, then it would not be because they have sincere altruistic sentiments for Ukrainians, but rather because of reasons such as they are being paid to do so, or they are trying to launch a political career, or they are choosing a community service activity so they can put it on their college or job applications, and so forth.

    The host mentioned that he may write a scientific paper related to the death penalty in the Iberian Peninsula and then compare and contrast the evolutionary consequences with respect to the same situation in North-Western Europe. However, my understanding is that he will actually ask an actual scientist to carry out the scientific part of the paper which entails mathematical analysis, and then the host will just carry out the secretarial parts, such as searching for other scientific papers that can be useful for the scientist, writing up the paper formally, and paper submission.

Comments are closed.