Baby-Killers for Open Borders: Why Leftists Love Lies and Hate Whites
Kathleen Stock usually writes badly but sometimes thinks well. She’s the British philosopher who was driven out of academia because she refused to accept leftist lies. What was her thought-crime? Inter alia, she denied that schlong-slung slime-bags should be part of sapphic traffic. In other words, Stock rejects transgenderism and doesn’t think that men can be lesbians. She’s right. She’s also right about a new freedom granted to women in Britain. It’s the freedom to murder their babies. Here’s what Stock said about the contradictory leftist arguments that have won women their right to infanticide:
The Victim Strategy and the Omniscient Gambit can’t both be true. Women seeking late-term abortions for healthy babies cannot be disempowered, traumatised wrecks, but also clear-sighted rational actors whose decisions society should respect. If the number of late-term abortions grows after the removal of the criminal deterrent, then presumably the defenders will stick to their respective sweeping stories even so. Women who induce late abortions are too emotionally delicate to withstand judicial scrutiny, but somehow also powerfully agentic. Either way, their personal involvement in the deaths of their babies is no matter for the law. […]
It seems we have here another example of the “Let’s Be Free” people and the “Let’s Be Kind” people teaming up to wreak havoc upon settled moral intuitions. I first noticed the dynamic during the gender wars, and wrote about it then: of gimlet-eyed sexual libertarians taking advantage of the cover provided by mumsy rainbow types with lanyards [the neck-worn name-tags often sported by leftists]. While the former pushed the boundaries, the latter preached compassion to unfortunate minorities and accused anyone who objected of cruelty. […]
And as for full-term abortion here, it seems likely that — having removed the women at the centre of the story from the possibility of prosecution — there will be later attempts to legalise the process fully, removing providers and partners from criminal sanctions too. Indeed, [Stella] Creasy has been trying to do this for some time.
Though decriminalisation is currently being presented by BPAS [British Pregnancy Advisory Service] as a kindness towards damaged and exploited women-children, I predict that institutional memories will be short. After some time has passed, the act at the heart of the debate will be framed once again as a vital freedom for all kickass girlbosses, at which point surrounding prohibitions can fall away. How can it be rational, it will be asked, to punish providers, doctors, or romantic partners for helping with a process that is not actually a crime for the main participant? Not wishing to go against women’s “reproductive freedoms” or indeed their “vital healthcare”, many politicians once again will not know what to say. (“The limits of bodily autonomy,” Unherd, 27th March 2026)
Stock is describing how leftists have no fixed principle except the pursuit of power: “Heads We Win, Tails You Lose.” And power, for leftists, means being able to privilege their pets and punish their enemies. Leftists like Stella Creasy (whose love of open borders I’ll discuss below) have now given women the privilege to murder babies. Murder is, after all, what “full-term abortion” entails even by feminist standards: a fully developed baby, easily capable of surviving outside the womb, is deliberately deprived of life. That’s murder. In effect, leftists want females, as pets of leftism, to be above the law.
At the same time, leftists want males, as enemies of leftism, to be more and more firmly under the law. In 2026 leftists in Britain have simultaneously granted females the freedom to murder babies and celebrated a “landmark case” in which a man was jailed for eight years for allegedly driving his wife to suicide. Leftists want any bad outcome for women to be the fault of men. That’s why they believe in privilege for females and punishment for males. Or rather, it’s punishment for White males, whom leftists classify as enemies. But leftism gives privilege to non-White males, whom leftists classify as pets. And so leftists apply the law as harshly as possible against White males while granting maximum license to non-White males.
No details of gang-rapists
That’s why Muslim rape-gangs have flourished for so long in towns and cities all over Britain. And it’s why obviously dangerous Blacks like Axel Rudakubana and Valdo Calocane were left free to commit three murders apiece. In 2026 we’ve just seen another example of this leftist double-standard: law for White males, license for non-White males. At the end of March, there was widespread public disorder in the London district of Clapham as large groups of predominantly non-White youths mobbed shops, committed thefts and intimidated shoppers. How did the police respond? By allowing the yoots to express their vibrant culture without interference.
Riot-police for White men thought-criminals in Epsom (image from GBNews)
A short time later and short distance away, the police acted quite differently when White men protested about an alleged gang-rape in a town called Epsom. Yes, riot-police were out in Epsom to confront the protestors. The White men were protesting because the police have refused to reveal any details of the “several men” allegedly involved in the gang-rape. As the police explained, detectives “do not have full descriptions of any potential suspects.” You see, detectives don’t yet know the suspects’ shoe-sizes, finger-lengths, average heart-rates and dental histories, so they’re not releasing any details beyond that “several men” are being sought. That’s perfectly reasonable, don’t you think?
Blight, not blessing
Well, you’ll think it’s perfectly reasonable if you’re a leftist, because you’ll guess the very simple reason for the police silence. Namely, that the suspects are non-White and have foreign accents. The White men protesting in Epsom have made the same guess. But those men aren’t non-White, aren’t leftists and don’t think the police silence is reasonable. That’s why the riot-police turned out to confront them. But there were no riot-police for the non-White males in Clapham. Why the contrast? It’s simple. White males threaten leftism, because they have the potential intelligence, organization and fighting spirit to challenge and overthrow the leftist elite. But leftism isn’t threatened by non-White crime and chaos. On the contrary, leftism is enhanced by non-White pathologies, because they harm ordinary Whites and reduce our ability to resist and rebel.
Smarmy leftist Stella Creasy and her Jewish partner Dan Fox
Another bonus for leftists is that non-White pathologies reduce the ability of Whites to have children, because Whites lose money both directly and indirectly through them. But non-Whites don’t have to commit crime or create chaos to be a gross and ever-growing burden on Whites. As Arctotherium and Alden Whitfeld have pointed out in an excellent essay at Heretical Insights, leftist economists have been lying for decades about the benefits of Third-World immigration. In fact, it’s a blight, not a blessing:
[B]ecause immigrants cluster in high-productivity areas, and because their presence drives natives out, immigrant incomes are artificially inflated relative to natives. In Britain, ethnic minorities are overrepresented in London by roughly a factor of three. London’s productivity is about 50% higher than the rest of the country. Were it not for immigration-induced native displacement, white British incomes would be higher and minority incomes lower than observed. Fiscal and income comparisons therefore substantially understate the true cost of immigration relative to natives. (“Moving Targets: The ‘missing’ impact of immigration,” Heretical Insights, 28th March 2026)
This brings me back to the leftist Stella Creasy. It’s no coincidence that Creasy is a fan both of baby-murder and, as I described in “Doom of the Dumb,” of non-White migration. She’s a baby-killer for open borders. She knows that both these things are good for leftism, because baby-murder will harm Whites and open borders will help non-Whites. Like the new Green MP Hannah Spencer, Creasy is herself a White blonde, but their shared hair-color may help explain their hostility to their own race. The value of natural blonde hair goes up as the White share of the population goes down. So what’s not to like for egocentric narcissists like Creasy and Spencer? It’s also significant that Creasy’s “partner” is the publicity-shy Zionist Jew Dan Fox, a former director of Labour Friends of Israel.
And perhaps Creasy and Spencer themselves have Jewish ancestry. An anti-blonde American politician certainly does. He’s a Jew called Brett Smiley. As the mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, he’s overseen the removal of a mural of Iryna Zarutska, the blonde Ukrainian refugee who was horrifically murdered by a Black career-criminal called Decarlos Brown. Now, when a Black woman behaves stupidly and gets herself shot by the police, leftists demand that the world “Say Her Name.” But Smiley could not bring himself to “Say Her Name” when he explained why the mural of Iryna Zarutska just had to go: “The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like this across the country is divisive and does not represent Providence. I continue to encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than further divides us.”
They belong behind bars
Like “democracy” and “rule of law,” “divisive” is a favorite term of leftists. But when they use words, they follow the lexical rule laid down by Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass (1871): “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” What did Brett Smiley mean by saying the mural of Iryna Zarutska was “divisive”? He meant that it revealed the truth about two things that contradict leftist lies and threaten leftist power. First, Black predation on Whites; second, leftist enabling of that Black predation.
Judeo-pol Brett Smiley, yet another elite leftist who belongs behind bars
But Smiley and countless other leftists have never objected to murals of the alleged Black martyr George Floyd. Why not? Because Floyd murals present Whites as vicious villains and Blacks as virtuous victims. In other words, when a mural tells the truth, leftists want it taken down. When a mural tells lies, leftists want it to stay up. Leftists love lies because lying is how they win and maintain their power to privilege their pets and punish their enemies. But sometimes privilege is punishment too. Leftists in Britain have given women the privilege to kill their babies because that’s another way to harm Whites. The agenda is always anti-White because Whites are the only group that can overthrow leftism and put elite leftists where they belong: behind bars.