White Supremacist: The Problem with Pro-Lifers Is They Believe in Human Rights

Richard Spencer, the leader of the “alt-right” movement and a proud white supremacist, just provided the most damning defense of abortion I have ever encountered, and everyone should read it. If you believe abortion is a woman’s “right,” or that it is just a personal choice the government should stay out of – even if you are Pro-Life but consider it just another issue – you need to read what he said.

Jonathan van Maren offers a spot-on analysis here; feel free to skip the rest of this post and just read his instead.

The big problem with the Pro-Life movement, according to Spencer, is that it promotes human rights:

And so the anti-abortion crusade becomes this ‘human rights’ crusade… (the idea) that every being that is human has a right to life and so on. Well that’s not how we think… You are part of a community, you’re part of a family, you’re part of a collective. You do not have some human right, some abstract thing given to you by God or by the world or something like that. You’re part of a community and that’s where you gain your meaning or your rights. The anti-abortion crusade is often associated with family, the traditional family, but to be honest it’s descended into not just a human rights dogma but a kind of dysgenic “we are the world” dogma.

Did you get that? Well? Do we have human rights simply by virtue of being human, or do our rights depend on the opinion of someone else, or the decision of the group? If you support abortion in any circumstance, you have to place yourself in the latter camp. Also notice how the totalitarian right blends into the totalitarian left in that both ultimately dismiss the individual and value only the group.

Unborn humans are still humans. They don’t magically become homo sapiens when they exit the womb. Do their lives matter? The pro-abortion side says “that depends.” To them, an unborn child’s value is contingent upon the whims of the mother. If a pregnant woman is murdered in most states, it is considered a double homicide. But if a woman ends the life of the child growing inside her, it is simply a private decision.

As a culture, why should we care about the lives and rights of the unborn? They leave behind no friends to mourn them. Society has yet to invest in them; from an economic standpoint, they certainly consume more than they produce. The answer is that a human’s value is not determined by their productivity, intelligence, or social connections, but by virtue of the fact that we are all “endowed by our Creator” with the inalienable right to life.

In “alienating” the rights of some, we deny the rights of all. Either all lives matter, or no lives matter. “Some lives matter” may seem to work for a while, but it eventually leads to concentration camps and mass graves. The Nazis began their executions not with Jews but with the mentally and physically handicapped, individuals whose value was determined to be less than the cost of even allowing them to remain alive. World War II claimed the lives of 60 million human beings, most of whom were not Jewish. You may not personally mourn the loss of the unborn – fragile, helpless beings you never got the chance to meet – just as you may not personally mourn the shooting of an inner-city youth. But when one group’s rights are declared contingent upon the decisions of others, or when society offers only an indifferent shrug in the face of their slaughter, it inevitably diminishes the rights of all. A culture that tolerates or promotes abortion will also accept euthanasia, suicide, child abuse, and domestic violence. Instead of universal respect, the world becomes one in which, to quote Thucydides: “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

According to Spencer, the abortion issue is “complicated” and not a “‘good or evil’ binary.” In his twisted world view, abortion is good when it is used to control the population of “undesirables” – for Spencer, the poor and minorities – but bad when it is used to control the reproduction of intelligent whites. Spencer bemoans the use of contraception by “highly intelligent career women” who should be passing on their superior genetics to advance the white race. He concludes:

We should recognize that the pro-life movement—this is not the alt-right… we should be genuinely suspicious of people who think in terms of human rights and who are interested in adopting African children and bringing them to this country and who get caught up on this issue… We want to be eugenic in the deepest sense of the word. Pro-lifers want to be radically dysgenic, egalitarian, multi-racial human rights thumpers—and they’re not us.

To echo Von Maren – no, we are not!

Advertisements

No Surprise Planned Parenthood Sells Baby Parts

Today another undercover video was released in which a Planned Parenthood doctor, Mary Gatter, casually discusses the sale of aborted baby parts, including the use of “less crunchy” techniques to extract “whole specimens.” This follows an earlier video of Deborah Nucatola describing how they can “crush” other areas to preserve prized organs for research. I must confess, I am not surprised. I am saddened and disturbed, but I am not shocked. To anyone who is, I have this question: “Well, what were you expecting?”

How would you imagine the people whose daily business is death to treat the “byproducts” of their “procedures?” Did you think that, after crushing their tiny bodies and suctioning them out of the womb, the staff would then stand around in a circle and say a little prayer? That the bodies of these children—babies with heads and hearts and lungs and legs—would be given something approximating a funeral, that they would be treated with any measure of respect? After all, doing so would expose the Big Lie of abortion: that unborn children are not human beings with dignity and worth.

I say this not to dismiss or criticize those who are shocked and surprised by these recent videos. It is good for you to be educated and outraged about the true nature of abortion. Perhaps you missed the other secretly recorded video where a Planned Parenthood representative facilitates the sex trafficking of immigrant children, or the phone call where another rep ensures a caller that his racist donation will only go to the abortion of black babies. Maybe you didn’t hear about “Doctor” Kermit Gosnell’s late-term abortion house of horrors in Philadelphia, where low-income minority women were injured and occasionally killed by his negligence and babies born alive were mercilessly slaughtered, some even kept as trophies. It’s not as if the mainstream media was eager to cover these stories, many of which I find even more disturbing. So you could be forgiven for not knowing about them.

But once you scratch the surface of the abortion industry in general and Planned Parenthood in particular, you discover something more than “choices,” “women’s rights,” “reproductive health,” and any of the other euphemisms they hide behind. You see the face of evil. And once you see it, it is not something you can easily forget.

Pro-Choice

This is not to say that everyone who supports abortion is evil, just that they have all fallen to some extent under its spell. Because the obvious truth about abortion is that it ends a human life. We are not talking about religion here, but simple, elementary science. When a woman discovers she is pregnant, she knows it is not a parasite or a lump of cells or a “potential” human growing in her womb, but a unique human being that, if simply left alone, will inevitably acquire all the attributes we associate with human life. Though not all unborn children are allowed to develop naturally, this is where we all began. At one point all of us were as innocent and helpless as the “parts” being so casually sold by Planned Parenthood, and this innocence and helplessness did not end when we emerged from the womb.

But to the abortion industry, the humanity of the unborn is the ultimate inconvenient truth. I have never encountered a moral argument for abortion that was even remotely convincing. Logically, to support abortion is to support the contention that some lives matter less than others and therefore can be ended for no better reason than convenience. No one really thinks getting an abortion is the same as getting an appendectomy or a tooth pulled, unless they are mentally unsound.

Therefore, proponents of abortion can be divided into two camps: those who view abortion as a necessary evil, and those who hold it up as a moral good despite the fact that it ends a human life. Notice how the “necessary evil” camp is the group that most desperately tries to deny the humanity of the unborn. They don’t want to see the pictures of aborted fetuses. They don’t want to hear the procedures described. They don’t want to contemplate the possibility that a woman might be pressured into having an abortion against her will. They simply don’t want to think about it at all. Let someone else make the decision. Let the blame fall on someone else’s shoulders. Leave them out of it. In fact, a better name for this camp might be “the Pontius Pilates.”

abortiondiagram

But the “abortion as good” crowd is different. They see nothing morally questionable about abortion, and believe women should be open and unapologetic about their abortions. They oppose even the most sensible regulations and restrictions, including bans on late-term abortions that are present in most other western countries. Often, they are the ones who work in the abortion industry or its lobby, like the women on the recent videos. I’m going to say something that might surprise some readers: I do not believe Planned Parenthood sells baby parts to make a profit. Mary Gatter might have joked about wanting a Lamborghini, but she knows this will never happen. Maybe someone is getting rich from selling fetal tissue, but I doubt it. So? You might ask. If not for the money, why is Planned Parenthood doing this?

Evil is difficult to understand because it lacks the truth and internal logic of good. Evil is the negation of good, and therefore can’t be studied on its own. But it does follow certain predictable patterns. If I were to try to explain what Planned Parenthood gets out of selling these unborn baby parts, I would say that it furthers the idea in their minds that the work they are doing is good. It also feeds their egos. The mothers of these babies don’t want them. Society, if our laws are any indication, doesn’t want them. In the minds of the abortionist, both are better off without them; the abortionist simply takes something unwanted and rejected and then extracts value out of it. When I hear the women in these videos, I hear women in love with their own power: the power to determine life and death. Their arrogance is unmistakable.

The Devil’s greatest lie is: Don’t worship God; worship yourself. In a world built upon self-worship, there are no limits on what the individual can do. Destruction, decadence, and desire are glorified. Abortion is celebrated as a sacrament. In the Culture of Death, bodies are not respected, but treated as commodities. Therefore, parts can be bought and sold. People can be treated as means, not ends.

Maybe you think I’m going overboard with the whole “evil” thing. If so, I invite you to listen to this video of abortion supporters interrupting a speaker with chants of “Hail Satan” as pro-life demonstrators sing Amazing Grace (skip to the 5:00 mark if you are pressed for time).

Evil does not like to be called out by its name. It prefers to masquerade as Necessity, or Tolerance, or Freedom. But the act grows tiresome. Every now and then, the mask slips. And once you see evil’s face and hear its voice, you know it is real and must be denounced. I am not shocked or surprised by these recent videos, but I am encouraged by the fact that so many others are. Maybe this is their moment. Maybe it is yours. Now that you know the truth about abortion, what will you do?

Giving Up Our Natural Rights for Artificial Ones

It’s been a long time since there has been this much fundamental disagreement in America over the nature of liberty. Judging by recent events, many Americans no longer value our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Where did this disregard originate, what worldview underlies it, and how can we fight it? These are the questions I plan to address in this post.

First, there is a reason that freedom of speech and religion are combined in the First Amendment. While freedom of religion involves the right to pray and worship as one chooses, religion is not a strictly private matter. It is not enough to say, “Believe what you want, just keep it to yourself,” a new twist on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Religious freedom is primarily the freedom to live according to the dictates of one’s own conscience. We don’t surrender this right when we step out of our mosques, churches, synagogues, or private homes. Even atheists and agnostics have the right to come to their own conclusions on moral issues, to not be compelled by the state to participate in behavior they find morally questionable, and to voice their opinions on matters of conscience.

So how can Americans, whose country’s very existence was founded on the belief that we are endowed with rights by the “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God,” be so quick to denounce and even condemn them?

I believe the answer to this question is two-fold. First, a people will only voluntarily surrender a right if they believe doing so is necessary to secure a greater, more important right. Second, one’s conception of liberty depends on one’s understanding of truth itself. There is a deeper moral and philosophical conflict underlying our political debates.

Every high school government class is likely to contain some discussion of how certain rights can often conflict with others. It is the role of the law to define and adjudicate where one person’s rights end and another’s begin. For example, one could reasonably renounce the “right” to steal from one’s neighbor in exchange for the right to be secure in one’s own possessions. But this only shows that the right to steal is not a God-given, inalienable one, or else it could not by definition be forfeited.

What “rights”, then, are so important that a bill entitled the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” could possibly become the subject of a national debate? Since when did religious freedom become controversial?

To hear the outcry in the media, one would think RFRA proponents were claiming the unlimited right to religion, but this is clearly not the case. One has only to read the text of the law, going back to the original bill signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. RFRA laws simply state that if the government is going to impinge upon your right to religion, it must have a very good reason to do so, a “compelling government interest.”

For example, it is illegal in this country for people under twenty-one to consume alcoholic beverages. Yet children as young as seven receive Holy Communion at Mass. The government has correctly judged that keeping a child from having a sip of what many would consider wine (but that Catholics regard as Christ’s holy blood) is not a compelling enough interest to prevent the practice of a crucial aspect of the Catholic faith.

On the other hand, it is easy to envision a scenario in which the government might reasonably conclude that one’s right to freedom of religion does not include the right to polygamous marriage (as in the case of Islam and Mormon fundamentalism) or the traditional Aztec practice of human sacrifice. The government has a compelling interest in protecting the well-being of children and the lives of would-be victims.

Again, nothing too advanced here. The reason religious freedom has fallen out of vogue is not its complexity, but rather its apparent conflict with the gay rights movement.

Unfortunately, the focus of the gay rights movement has shifted from defending the rights of gay Americans to embrace a homosexual lifestyle free from discrimination and persecution– to live and love as they choose– to the right to do so without anyone voicing so much as a word of criticism or objection. After considering (and rejecting) a strategy that would have promoted civil unions as a legal protection for gay and lesbian partnerships, liberals now claim the right to redefine marriage, an institution as old as human society itself, to suit the sexual and emotional needs of homosexual adults.

Anyone who so much as breaths a word of caution at what would undoubtedly be one of the largest social experiments in human history is mocked as backward, bigoted, and “on the wrong side of history.” Anyone who dares defend the traditional understanding of marriage is roundly chastised on social media, subjected to intimidation and threats, and targeted for financial ruin.

Despite earlier promises and reassurances, the power of the state is now being used not only to silence religious opposition to the redefinition of marriage, but to require participation in what amounts to government-mandated speech. Baking a cake, photographing a ceremony, and even arranging flowers are forms of speech requiring the creative energies of the baker, photographer, and florist. Declining to participate in same-sex ceremonies, or any ceremonies for that matter, is not discrimination; it is the constitutionally-protected right of every American citizen.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

It is a sad reality that college campuses, which should be the most open to debate and even controversy, have instead led the charge in the attack on freedom of speech. Many young Americans no longer see the importance of protecting speech they and their friends in the echo-chamber of liberal elitism disagree with. It is easy to picture the fervent nineteen-year-old student tilting her head in confusion at the notion that even unpopular views deserve protection. “Why would you want to protect the right to be wrong?”

All sorts of excuses are given for limiting unpopular (usually conservative) speech. The first is to label it as “hate,” reducing traditional Christians to the level of Neo-Nazis and the KKK. (In Canada, it is now a hate crime to advocate a traditional definition of marriage or to quote the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.) The second is to trot out the lie that appeals to traditional morality are dangerous and intolerant, as they may damage the fragile self-esteem of anyone who is not a “privileged” heterosexual white Christian male.

But scratch beneath the surface, and one discovers a radical metaphysical and epistemological shift underlying the culture wars. Traditional Christian morality rests upon an understanding of natural law, the idea that reality is absolute and that objective truth can be discovered outside of one’s subjective feelings using the human faculties of reason and observation. On the other hand, those who share a progressive worldview regard reality as just a powerful illusion, and truth therefore a social construct. It is not fixed or eternal—not handed down by a divine Creator. Rather, we are the collective creators, and truth is whatever the majority of people in a society say it is. To borrow a line from Orwell, using this standard, 2+2 can equal 5.

Because the liberal basis for truth is so tenuous, resting on such a fragile foundation as popular opinion, all dissenting voices must be singled out for ridicule and then silenced, lest they supplant liberalism as the dominant narrative. Inconvenient facts must be suppressed in the name of whatever generally agreed-upon Higher Cause. Dogmas are propagated in the absence of biological or physical evidence (for example, the notion that a man can become a woman, or that a fetus developing in the womb is not a person).

On the other hand, the best conservative and Christian thinkers are not afraid of challenges to their positions. They can rest assured that the truth will not change, regardless of whether they lose this particular debate on this particular day. Moral relativists enjoy no such reassurances, resulting in a cauldron of insecurity and doubt simmering under a veneer of artificial confidence. Tolerance is not enough; all must be active participants in the creation of this artificial “truth.” This metaphysical insecurity explains the paradox of the intolerant Left, which only tolerates relatively insignificant differences in appearance, but not the more meaningful differences in belief. They will accept any combination of sexual and gender identity (hence the diversity designation LGBT-QIA), but not a difference in opinion, especially if it comes from a member of a specially-protected victim group.

In conclusion, our natural rights to life and liberty are being subverted. In their place, Americans are being offered an array of artificial, man-made “rights,” mainly the “right” to engage in any and all sexual activity (pre-marital, homosexual, polygamous, adulterous) while being freed from the consequences of said activities (contraception, abortion). But this is only symptomatic of an erroneous understanding of morality, based not on a rational understanding of natural law, but rather a “might makes right” approach to truth itself.

What is needed now is not just a reordering of the hierarchy of competing rights, but also a proper understanding of where those rights originate.

I began this post by observing that it has been a long time since Americans were this divided on the nature of liberty, but this is by no means the first time. Just over a hundred and fifty years ago, serious individuals actually debated whether a person had the right to own another human being. A slave’s right to liberty was considered by many to fall below the slave owner’s right to own property.

Our rights come not from society or even the law, but from our Creator, as clearly stated the Declaration of Independence. We can discover these rights using our God-given faculties of reason or “common sense”; they are thus “self-evident.” It does not take a doctoral degree in philosophy to understand that people are born and have a right to be free, but it takes a clever perversion of the law to argue that a man can own another man. Even a child intuitively knows that the life of a brother or sister growing in his mother’s womb is a human being worthy of protection, a “baby,” but it takes decades of social conditioning and some very convoluted Constitutional jujitsu to fabricate the right to end that life, often for no better reason than convenience.

Those who today speak with such confidence about being “on the right side of history” would do well to recall that abolition and emancipation were once unpopular and controversial views that many sought to silence. The loudest voices demanding an end to slavery were not secular ones, but Christians who felt compelled to carry their moral convictions into the public square. In the end, the natural right to freedom prevailed; not because it was popular, but because it was right in its conformity to natural law.