Washington Post changes history to portray pro-life Americans as (wait for it) ‘white supremacists’

By Jon Dougherty

(NationalSentinel) Another day, another smear of the tens of millions of American conservatives by a Left-wing ‘establishment’ news outlet.

Like the rest of the Marxist mainstream media, the Post is stuck on characterizing Caucasian person to the right of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin as a “white supremacist,” and since it must be a slow news cycle, the paper found time to assign a reporter to invent a new line of attack.

Theheadline of a Tuesday piece by Marissa Brostoff says it all: “How white nationalists aligned themselves with the antiabortion movement.”

Essentially, this piece of garbage  hones in “on a uniquely reprehensible bit of white nationalist conspiracy theory called ‘the great replacement,'” according to C. Douglas Golden at The Western Journal.

He writes:

The theory states that white people are being demographically “replaced” in majority-white countries by ethnic minorities, usually with the complicity of elite politicians who want this because — well, I don’t know, since it’s prima facie ridiculous.

However, it apparently explains why some white nationalists have become vigorously anti-abortion: “Like their eugenicist forebears, today’s increasingly visible white nationalists ‘are obsessed with falling birthrates, and by extension they are obsessed with the recruitment — and total control — of women’s wombs,’ as the writer Mona Eltahawy recently put it,” Brostoff wrote.

“They have latched onto antiabortion extremism in an attempt to bolster white population growth, while aiming to restrict the growth of nonwhite populations through campaigns of terror against immigrants. In some cases, antiabortion politics provide cover for white nationalist sentiments, allowing sympathizers to speak broadly about ‘population’ rather than race, even as they value some unborn lives over others.”

It appears that Brostoff didn’t even do rudimentary research for her piece, as it’s been well known that black women have abortions are far greater statistical rates than do white women. Golden notes that “in 2017, 36 percent of abortions were performed on black women, even though black Americans comprised only 13.4 percent of the population. There were 25.1 abortions per 1,000 black women as opposed to 6.8 per 1,000 for white women.”

So, how is it possible, then, to associate this with “white nationalism” and ‘the great replacement’ suddenly becoming a major part of the pro-life movement. Well, simply put, you don’t. Because you can’t.

Realistically, anyway. Brostoff never mentions these stats in her article.

She then equates the Nazis’ anti-abortion policies with today’s conservative pro-life movement (seriously), without ever noting that the policy applied to good, pure “Aryan” people. But still: How to connect some dot to the conservative pro-life American?

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). Oh.

“Last fall, speaking to a far-right Austrian magazine, the Iowa Republican congressman Steve King succinctly laid out his theory of Western decline,” Brostoff wrote.

“The problem, he suggested, was a demographic born at the nexus of reproduction and immigration. ‘If we continue to abort our babies and import a replacement for them in the form of young violent men, we are supplanting our culture, our civilization,’ King said.

“King had already called attention to himself the previous year for retweeting a cartoon that depicted the nativist Dutch party leader Geert Wilders as a bulwark against invading Muslim hordes. ‘Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies,’ King wrote.”

You Might Like

Naturally, Brostoff also included King’s quote about babies conceived out of rape and incest: “What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that?”

But seriously, is Steve King representative of the entire conservative/pro-life movement? Hardly.

The fact is, abortion was mainstreamed by a woman named Margaret Sanger as a means of controlling (as in reducing) the black population. Abortion was then embraced by which party? That would be the Democrat Party.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in an opinion for the Supreme Court’s May 28 decision in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, where the Court declined to review an Indiana law prohibiting abortions on the basis of race, sex, or disability, wrote:

This case highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation. From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was particularly open about the fact that birth control could be used for eugenic purposes. These arguments about the eugenic potential for birth control apply with even greater force to abortion, which can be used to target specific children with unwanted characteristics.

Even after World War II, future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher and other abortion advocates endorsed abortion for eugenic reasons and promoted it as a means of controlling the population and improving its quality. As explained below, a growing body of evidence suggests that eugenic goals are already being realized through abortion.

Like many elites of her day, Sanger accepted that eugenics was “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” She agreed with eugenicists that “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’” was “the greatest present menace to civilization.” Particularly “in a democracy like that of the United States,” where “[e]quality of political power has . . . been bestowed upon the lowest elements of our population,” Sanger worried that “reckless spawning carries with it the seeds of destruction.” […]

Sanger herself campaigned for birth control in black communities. In 1930, she opened a birth-control clinic in Harlem. Then, in 1939, Sanger initiated the “Negro Project,” an effort to promote birth control in poor, Southern black communities. Noting that blacks were “‘notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a “caste” system,’” she argued in a fundraising letter that “‘birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation.’”

In a report titled “Birth Control and the Negro,” Sanger and her coauthors identified blacks as “‘the great problem of the South’”—“the group with ‘the greatest economic, health, and social problems’”—and developed a birth-control program geared toward this population. She later emphasized that black ministers should be involved in the program, noting, “‘We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.’”

You Might Like

Defenders of Sanger point out that W. E. B. DuBois and other black leaders supported the Negro Project and argue that her writings should not be read to imply a racial bias. But Sanger’s motives are immaterial to the point relevant here: that “Birth Control” has long been understood to “ope[n] the way to the eugenist.”

That is the true history of abortion, and, one could argue, since Sanger was a white woman, that perhaps she was a “white supremacist.” But her real intentions and the consequences of her actions in mainstreaming the abortion industry via Planned Parenthood doesn’t even come close to the nonsense Brostoff and The Washington Post are vomiting.

  • The National Sentinel is a Parler media partner. Follow us on the platform by clicking here. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. By signing up for our daily headlines newsletter, you can avoid the social media censorship and get our content directly, which also helps sustain our site financially.


Leave a Reply

5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Notify of
Marilyn Crawford

History changed when abortion became legal. Supreme whites will fight against abortion,and stand by the words thou shalt not kill. Or repent for believing the lie in the first place, that it is somehow our RIGHT to kill the innocent unborn, after not using birth control that is available all around most of this earth.


Come on, it is the WAPO did you really expect honesty or truth? What you will get from them is the standard liberal agenda talking points. The contempt that they have for America oozes from every story they write and the idea of an independent thought is considered heresy to their liberal belief system.


With Margaret Sanger at the wheel, abortionist
Planned Parenthood arose to wipe out the Black race. Now she’s a hero of the socialist-democrat party. So this argument is fallacious. Either that or the author is admitting that white supremacists are in control of the socialist-democrat party.

Steve in Missouri
Steve in Missouri

Washington Post brings you the latest revisionist history and now also the latest revisionist news.


[…] “By refusing to take responsibility for his egregious violation of basic rules of journalism, Philip Rucker is compromising the reputations of the other three. And WaPo stands by in silence,” he said in another message. (Related: Washington Post changes history to portray pro-life Americans as (wait for it) ‘white supremacists…) […]

%d bloggers like this: