Sex and Derailment

Michael O'Meara, American Renaissance, June 29, 2012

How the sexual revolution is destroying the West.

Guillaume Faye, Sexe et dévoiement, Éditions du Lore, 2011, €26.00, 376 pp, (soft cover, in French). 

Four years after Guillaume Faye’s La Nouvelle question juive (The New Jewish Question, 2007) alienated many of his admirers and apparently caused him to retreat from identitarianism and Euro-nationalism, his latest work signals a definite return, reminding us of why he remains one of the most creative thinkers defending the future of the white race.

In this 400-page book, which is an essay and not a work of scholarship, Mr. Faye’s central concern is the family, and the catastrophic impact the rising number of divorces and broken households is having on white demographic renewal. In linking family decline to its demographic and civilizational consequences, he dissects the larger social pathologies associated with the “inverted” sexuality now disfiguring European life. These pathologies include the de-virilization and feminization of white men, the normalization of homosexuality, feminist androgyny, Third-World colonization, miscegenation, the loss of bio-anthropological norms (like the blond Jesus)—and all that comes with the denial of biological reality.

At the core of Mr. Faye’s argument is the contention that sexuality constitutes a people’s fundamental basis; it governs its reproduction and ensures its survival. Thus, it is the key to any analysis of contemporary society.

As the ethologist Konrad Lorenz and the anthropologist/social theorist Arnold Gehlen (both of whom have influenced Mr. Faye) have demonstrated, there is nothing automatic or spontaneous in human sexuality, as it is in other animals. Man’s body may be like those of the higher mammals, but it is also a cultural, plastic one with few governing instincts. Socioeconomic, ideological, and emotional imperatives play a major role in shaping human behavior, especially in the higher civilizations.

Given, moreover, that humanity is no monolith, there can be no universal form of sexual behavior, and thus the sexuality, like everything else, of Europeans differs from that of non-Europeans. In the United States and Brazil, for example, the sexual practices and family forms of blacks are still very unlike those of whites, despite ten generations in these European-founded countries. Every form of sexuality, Mr. Faye argues, stems from a specific bioculture (a historically-defined “stock”), which varies according to time and people. Human behavior is thus for him always the result of a native, inborn ethno-psychology, historically embodied in cultural, religious, and ideological superstructures.

The higher, more creative the culture the more sexuality also tends to depend on fragile, individual factors—such as desire, libido, self-interest—in contrast to less developed cultures, whose reproduction relies more on collective and instinctive factors. High cultures consequently reproduce less and low cultures more, though the latter suffer far greater infant mortality (an equilibrium that was upset only in the 20th century, when high cultures intervened to reduce the infant mortality of lower cultures, thereby setting off today’s explosive Third-World population growth).

Despite these differences and despite the world’s great variety of family forms and sexual customs, the overwhelming majority of peoples and races nevertheless prohibit incest, pedophilia, racially mixed marriages, homosexual unions, and “unparented” children.

By contravening many of these traditional prohibitions in recent decades, Western civilization has embarked on a process that Mr. Faye calls derailment, which is evident in the profound social and mental pathologies that follow the inversion of  “natural” (i.e., historic or ancient) norms—inversions that have been legitimized in the name of morality, freedom, and equality.

Sexe et dévoiement is an essay, then, about the practices and ideologies currently affecting European sexuality and about how these practices and ideologies are leading Europeans into a self-defeating struggle against nature—against their nature, upon which their biocivilization rests.

The Death of the Family

Since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, expressions of egalitarianism and a nihilistic individualism have helped undermine the family, bringing it to the critical stage it has reached today. Of these, the most destructive for Mr. Faye has been the ideology of libidinal love (championed by the so-called “sexual liberation” movement of the period), which confused recreational sex with freedom, disconnected sex from reproduction, and treated traditional social/cultural norms as forms of oppression.

The “liberationists” of the 1960s—the first generation raised on TV—were linked to the New Left, which saw all restraint as oppressive and all individuals as interchangeable. They were convinced that all things were possible, as they sought to free desire from the “oppressive” mores of what Mr. Faye calls the “bourgeois family.”

This ‘60s-style sexual liberation, he notes, was “Anglo-Saxon” in origin, motivated by a shift from prudery to the opposite extreme. Originally, this middle-class, Protestant prudery confined sexuality to the monogamous nuclear family, which represented a compromise between individual desire and familial interests. This compromise preserved the family line and reared children to carry it on.

In the 1960s, when the Boomers came of age, the puritans passed to the other extreme, jettisoning their sexual “squeamishness” and joining the movement to liberate the libido. In practice, this meant abolishing conjugal fidelity, heterosexual dominance, “patriarchy,” and whatever taboos opposed the feel-good “philosophy” of the liberationists. As the Sorbonne’s walls proclaimed in ‘68: “It’s prohibited to prohibit.” The “rights” of individual desire and happiness would henceforth come at the expense of all the prohibitions that had formerly made the family viable. Mr. Faye does not mention it, but American-style consumerism was beginning to take hold in Western Europe at the same time, promoting self-indulgent materialism and the pursuit of pleasure.

Americans pioneered the ideology of sexual liberation, along with gay pride and the porn industry, but a significant number of “ordinary” white Americans resist their elites’ anti-traditional sexual ideology. Salt Lake City here prevails over Las Vegas. The Washington Leviathan nevertheless continues to use these ideologies and practices to subvert non-liberal societies, though not always with success: The Russians have rebuffed “international opinion” and refuse to tolerate gay pride parades.

Europeans, by contrast, have been qualitatively more influenced by the “libertine revolutionaries,” and Mr. Faye’s work speaks more to Europeans than to Americans, though it seems likely that the European experience will sooner or later come to the United States.

Against the backdrop of ‘60s-style sexual liberation, personal sexual relations were reconceived as a strictly individualistic and libidinal “love,” based on the belief that this highly inflated emotional state was too important to limit to conjugal monogamy. Marriages based on impulsive sexual attractions and the “hormonal tempests” they set off have since become the tomb not just of stable families, but increasingly of Europe herself.

For with this adolescent cult of sexualized love that elevates the desires of the solitary individual above his communal and familial duties, there comes another kind of short-sighted, feel-good liberal ideology that destroys collective imperatives: the cult of human rights. This flood of discourses and laws promoting brotherhood and anti-racism are synonymous with de-virilizition, ethnomaschoism, and the destruction of Europe’s historic identity.

Romantic love, which is impulsive on principle, and sexual liberation have destroyed stable families. This “casino of pleasure” may be passionate, but it is also ephemeral and compelled by egoism. Indeed, almost all sentiments grouped under the rubric of love, Mr. Faye contends, are egoistic and self-interested. Love in this sense is an investment from which one expects a return—one loves to be loved. A family of this kind is thus one inclined to allow superficial or immediate considerations to prevail over established, time-tested ones. Similarly, the rupture of such conjugal unions seems almost unavoidable, for once the pact of love is broken—and a strictly libidinal love always fades—the union dissolves.

The death of the “oppressive” bourgeois family at the hands of the  emancipation movements of the ‘60s has given rise to unstable stepfamilies, no-fault divorce, teenage mothers, single-parent homes, abandoned children, homosexual “families,” unisex ideology, new sexual categories, and an increasingly isolated and frustrated individual delivered over almost entirely to his own caprices.

The egoism governing such love-based families produces few children. To the degree that married couples today even want children, it seems to Mr. Faye less for the sake of sons and daughters to continue the line and more for the sake of a baby to pamper, a living toy that is an adjunct to their consumerism. And since the infant is idolized in this way, parents feel little responsibility for disciplining him. They subscribe to the “cult of the child,” which considers children to be “noble savages” rather than beings that need instruction.

The result is that children lack self-control and an ethic of obedience. Their development is compromised and their socialization neglected. These post-‘60s families also tend to be short lived, which means children are frequently traumatized by broken homes, raised by single parents or in stepfamilies, where their intellectual development is stunted and their blood ties confused. Without stable families and a sense of lineage, they lose all sense of ethnic or national consciousness and fail to understand why miscegenation and immigration ought to be opposed. The destruction of stable families, Mr. Faye surmises, bears directly on the present social-sexual chaos and the impending destruction of Europe’s racial stock.

Against the sexual liberationists, Mr. Faye upholds the model of the past. Though perhaps no longer possible, the stable couples of the bourgeois family structure put familial and communal interests over amorous ones, to the long-term welfare of both the couple and the children. Conjugal love came, as a result, to be impressed with friendship, partnership, and habitual attachments, for the couple was not defined as a self-contained amorous symbiosis, but as the pillar of a larger family architecture. This made conjugal love moderate and balanced rather than passionate. It was sustained by habit, tenderness, interest, care of the children, and la douceur du foyer (“the comforts of home”). Sexual desire remained, but in most cases declined in intensity or dissipated in time.

This family structure was extraordinarily stable. It assured the lineage, raised properly-socialized children, respected women, and won the support of law and custom. There were, of course, compromises and even hypocrisies (as men satisfied libidinal urgings in brothels), but in any case the family, the basic cell of society, was protected—even privileged.

The great irony of sexual liberation and its ensuing destruction of the bourgeois family is that it has obviously not brought greater happiness or freedom, but rather greater alienation and misery. In this spirit, the media now routinely (almost obsessively) sexualizes the universe, but sex has become more virtual than real: There is more pornography but fewer children. Once the “rights” of desire were emancipated, sex took on a different meaning, the family collapsed, sexual identity was increasingly confused, and perversions and transgressions became greater and more serious. As everyone set off in pursuit of an illusory libidinal fulfillment, the population became correspondently more atomized, uprooted, and miscegenated. In France today, 30 percent of all adults are single and there are even reports of a new “asexuality” in reaction to the sexualization of everything.

There is a civilization-destroying tragedy here: for, once Europeans are deprived of their family lineage, they cease to transmit their cultural and genetic heritage and thus lose all sense of who they are. This is critical to everything else. As the historians Michael Mitterauer and Reinhard Sieder write: “The family is one of the most archaic forms of social community, and at all times men have used the family as a model for the formation of human societies.” The loss of family stability, and thus the collapse of the family as society’s basic cell, Mr. Faye emphasizes, not only dissolves social relations, it brings disorder and makes all tyrannies possible. Once sexual emancipation helps turn society into a highly individualized, Balkanized mass, totalitarianism—not Soviet or fascist, but US progressive—becomes increasingly likely.

The Idolatry of Homosexuality

Homophilia and feminism are the most important children of the cultural revolution. They share, as such, much of the same ideological baggage that denies biological realities and makes war on the family. Mr. Faye claims that in the late 1960s, when homosexuals began demanding legal equality, they were fully within their rights. Homosexuality in his view is a genetic affliction affecting fewer than 5 percent of males, but he does not object to homosexuals practices within the privacy of the bedroom. What he finds objectionable is the confusion of private and public realms and the assertion of homophilia as a social norm. Worse, he claims that in much elite discourse, homosexuals have quickly gone from being pariahs to privileged beings, who flaunt their alleged “superiority” over heterosexuals, who are seen as old-fashioned, outmoded, ridiculous. Heterosexuals are like women who center their lives on the care of children rather than on a career, and are thus something bizarre and implicitly opposed to liberal-style “emancipation.”

Mr. Faye, who is by no means a prude, contends that female homosexuality is considerably different from and less damaging than male homosexuality. Most lesbians, in his view, are bisexual, rather than purely homosexual, and for whatever reason have turned against men. This he sees as a reflection on men. Even in traditional societies, women who engaged in homosexuality retained their femininity and so were not so shocking as their male counterparts. By contrast, male homosexuality was considered abhorrent, because it violated the nature of masculinity, making men no longer “properly” male and thus something mutant. To those who evoke the ancient glories of Athens as a counter-argument, Mr. Faye, a long-time Graeco-Latinist, says that in the period when a certain form of pederasty was tolerated, no adult male ever achieved respectability if he was not married, devoted to the interests of his family and clan, and, above all, was never to be “made of woman,” i.e., penetrated.

Like feminism, homophilia holds that humans are bisexual at birth and, willfully or not, choose their sexual orientation—as if anatomical differences are insignificant and all humans are a blank slate upon which they inscribe their self-chosen “destiny.” This view lacks any scientific credibility, to be sure, even if it is professed in our elite universities.  Like anti-racism, it denies biological realities incompatible with the reigning dogmas. Facts, though, have rarely stood in the way of faith or ideology—or, in the way of secular 20th-century ideologies that have become religious faiths.

Despite its progressive and emancipatory pretensions, homophilia, like sexual liberation in general, is entirely self-centered and indifferent to future and past, promoting “lifestyles” hostile to family formation and thus to white reproduction. Homophilia here marches hand in hand with anti-racism, denying the significance of biological differences and the imperatives of white survival.

This subversive ideology now even aspires to re-invent homosexuals as the flowers of society: liberators preparing the way to joy, liberty, fraternity, tolerance, social well-being, good taste, etc. As vice is transformed into virtue, homosexuality allegedly introduces a new sense of play and gaiety to the one-dimensional society of sad, heterosexual males. Except, Mr. Faye insists, there’s nothing genuinely gay about the gays, for theirs is a condition of stress and disequilibrium. At odds with their own nature, homosexuality is often a Calvary—and not because of social oppression, but because of those endogenous reasons (particularly their attraction to their own sex) that condemn them to a reproductive and genetic dead end.

In its public displays as gay pride, hemophilia defines itself as narcissistic, exhibitionist, and infantile, thus revealing those traits specific to its abnormal condition. In any case, a community worthy of itself, Mr. Faye tells us, is founded on shared values, on achievements, on origins—not on a dysgenic sexual orientation.

Schizophrenic Feminism

The reigning egalitarianism is always extending itself, trying to force genuine sexuality, individuality, demography, race, etc., to conform to its tenets. The demand that women have the same legal rights and opportunities as men, Mr. Faye thinks, was entirely just, especially for Europeans—and especially Celtic, Scandinavian, and Germanic Europeans—for their cultures have long respected the humanity of women. Indeed, he considers legal equality the single great accomplishment of feminism. But feminism has since been transformed into another utopian egalitarianism that makes sexes, like races, equivalent and interchangeable. Mr. Faye, though, refuses to equate legal equality with natural equality, for such an ideological muddling denies obvious biological differences, offending both science and common sense.

The dogma that differences between men and women are simply cultural derives from a feminist behaviorism in which women are seen as potential men, and femininity is treated as a social distortion. In Simone de Beauvoir’s formulation: “One is not born a woman, one becomes one.” Feminists therefore affirm the equality and interchangeability of men and women, yet at the same time they reject femininity, which they consider something inferior and imposed. The feminist model is thus the man, and feminism’s New Woman is simply his “photocopy.” In trying to suppress the specifically feminine in this way, feminism aims to masculinize women and feminize men in the image of its androgynous ideal.

Justin Beiber

This is like the anti-racist ideal of the mixed race or half-caste. This unisex ideology characterizes the mother as a slave and the devoted wife as a fool. In practice, it even rejects the biological functions of the female body, aspiring to a masculinism that imitates men and seeks to emulate them socially, politically, and otherwise. Feminism is anti-feminine—anti-mother and anti-family—and ultimately anti-reproduction.

Anatomical differences, however, have consequences. Male humans, like males of other species, always differ from females and behave differently. Male superiority in achievement—conceptual, mathematical, artistic, political, and otherwise—is often explained away as the result of female oppression. Mr. Faye rejects this, though he acknowledges that in many areas of life, for just or unjust reasons, women do suffer disadvantages; many non-whites practice outright subjugation of women. Male physical strength may also enable men to dominate women. But generally, Mr. Faye sees a rough equality of intelligence between men and women. Their main differences, he contends, are psychological and characterological, for men tend to be more outwardly oriented than women. As such, they use their intelligence more in competition, innovation, and discovery. They are usually more aggressive, more competitive, more vain and narcissistic than women who, by contrast, are more inclined to be emotionally loyal, submissive, prudent, temperate, and far-sighted.

Men and women are better viewed as organic complements, rather than as inferior or superior. From Homer to Cervantes to Mme. de Stäel, the image of women, their realms and their work, however diverse and complicated, have differed from that of men. Women may be able to handle most masculine tasks, but at the same time their disposition differs from men, especially in the realm of creativity.

This is vitally important for Mr. Faye. In all sectors of practical intelligence they perform as well as men, but not in their capacity for imaginative projection, which detaches and abstracts one’s self from contingent reality for the sake of imagining another. This is true in practically all areas: epic poetry, science, invention, religion, even cuisine and design. It is not from female brains, he notes, that have emerged submarines, space flight, philosophical systems, great political and economic theories, and the major scientific discoveries (Mme. Curie being the exception). Most of the great breakthroughs have been made by men and it has had nothing to do with women being oppressed. Feminine dreams are simply not the same as masculine ones, which search the impossible, the risky, the unreal.

Mme. Curie, French-Polish physicist and chemist.

Akin, then, in spirit to homophilia, anti-racism, and ‘60s-style sexual liberation, feminism’s rejection of biological realities and its effort to masculinize women end up not just distorting what it supposedly champions—women—it reveals its totally egoistic and present-oriented nature, for it rejects women as mothers and thus rejects the reproduction of the race.


Sexe et dévoiement treats a variety of other issues: Christian and Islamic views of sexuality; immigration and the different sexual practices it brings, some of which are extremely primitive and brutal; the role of prostitution; and the effect new bio-technologies will have on sexuality.

From the above discussion of the family, homophilia, and feminism, the reader should already sense the direction of Mr. Faye’s arguments, as he relates individual sexuality to certain macro-changes now forcing European civilization off its rails. His perspective is especially illuminating in that he is one of very few authors who link the decline of the white race to larger questions of civilization, sex, and demography.

Nevertheless I would make several criticisms. Like the European New Right as a whole, he tends to be overly simplistic in attributing the origins of the maladies he depicts to the secularization of certain Christian notions, such as equality and love. He also places the blame for undesirable social/economic developments on cultural/ideological influences rather than depicting a more realistic dialectical relationship of mutual causation. Likewise, he fails to consider the ethnocidal effects on Europe of America’s imperial supremacy, with its post-European rules of behavior and its anti-Christian policies.

But having said that—and after having written reviews of many of Guillaume Faye’s works over the last 10 years, and reading many other books that have made me more critical of aspects of his thought—I think whatever his “failings,” they pale in comparison to the light he sheds on the ethnocidal forces now bearing down on the white race.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

Michael O'Meara
Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., studied social theory at the Ecole Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and modern European history at the University of California. He is the author of New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (2004) and Toward the White Republic (2010).
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Mr. Faye, who is by no means a prude, contends that female homosexuality
    is considerably different from and less damaging than male

    Steve Sailer noticed this some time ago:

    I noticed the picture from the parade of people that are proud of their orifice choice.  St. Louis’s parade was last week, and it took place in the same neighborhood where Knockout Martin Luther King was an epidemic, including the Nguyen murder and the Quain beating.  You would think the pride people would quit being proud of themselves for a little while and take up the most pressing issue in the neighborhood. And like the pic above, various corporations made their endorsement and their “valuing diversity” clear. Funny that, if I worked for one of those corporations, and came out (no pun intended) publicly as the author of my own blog and these comments as Question Diversity, they wouldn’t much value my diversity.

  • Hirschibold

    A great in-depth review. The book seems fascinating, but much like Thilo Sarrazin’s “Deutschland” it will probably remain untranslated (at least to the best of my knowledge).

  • mikejones91

    Sexual liberation/revolution was started in the west. By nordics/other European groups. Not some Jewish conspiracy. However some aspects of it certainly don’t help us.

  • Generally correct, but – not wishing to write a long comment:

    * homosex & feminism are overrated as causes of birth decline. Feminism is virtually absent in East Asian societies like Japan & South Korea, while homosexuality is tolerated, but not such a big deal. Yet, they have an abysmal birth rate. IMO, hyper-technological societies inevitably lead to lower fertility.

    What can be done about it ?

    I’d say yes. First- the idea that women *must* compete with men career-wise is plain stupid. In many areas women just can’t compete, that’s not biologically possible (why women’s disciplines in sports ?). Second- motherhood is devalued, both ideologically & financially. There is a great comment one women posted on a PUA site where one can find a mixture of real stuff & male narcissistic idiocy. In short, there was a “theory” that high IQ people- mostly men, but women too-  don’t want children because they find them boring & demanding. Then one woman destroyed all quack theorizing with this comment:

    p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

    I’m not wild about other people’s kids. Sure, I like some of
    them alright, but that’s about it. It’s totally different with my

    From the moment I got the positive pregnancy test result and knew
    there was a baby growing inside my body, I loved them. The feeling
    intensified when I could feel the baby moving. With both pregnancies,
    I willingly underwent bed rest and godawful medical procedures to
    halt preterm labor, because I loved the child and wanted her, and for
    the second pregnancy him, to make it into this world as close to full
    term and as healthy as possible.

    There’s no adequate way to describe the outpouring of love I
    felt when my children were born. They’re worth every long hour
    spent walking and singing to a colicky baby, every sleepless night
    rocking a sick child, and all the extra work that children bring.
    They bring more joy than worry, and more love than work. I wouldn’t
    ever go back to life without my children, even if I could. They’re
    worth everything. I’d die for them if it ever became necessary.

    Yes, women are made to be mothers. Some women are defective and
    don’t make good mothers. For the rest of us, motherhood is an
    incredible completion, an ultimate meaning in a meaningless world.

    End of discussion.

    * US influence on continental European feminism is overrated (in the review), as is on general society per se. Except Scandinavia, most of continental Europe, from Madrid to Moscow, is strange to hookup “culture”, (online) dating & casual sex in “American manner”. What IS US import are gay prides & promotion of miscegenation.

    Re these matters, there are, IMO, different cultural areas: Britain, the Netherlands & to a degree Scandinavian countries are closest to American model. Mediterranean countries, from Spain to Greece, have different rules of behavior. Germany is, with Austria, Hungary & perhaps Poland & Baltic countries- another story. Ukraine & Russia- a different world.

  • mikejones91

    The most sexually open/NOT active places are White countries. 

    • pc must go

      Brazil is totally over-sexed.

      It’s kind of like everyone demonizing white women as _______ loose.

      White women in their teens/college years might experiment a bit, there is no dating anymore in that age bracket, just hook ups, be all “liberated” in  mind. East Asian-American women same thing- sorry, I knew plenty in college that were totally out of control and screwing everyone. They experiment too. There are “prudes” (wise of course) in every group. Not all white women are “girls gone wild”  at all.

      Black women are more likely to CHARGE for it, cause they grow up/are poor.

      Black and Latino women much more likely to have the out of wedlock kids. And the stds. They also have that hyper-sexed booty shaking culture.

      East Indian (American) women  I think are the most chaste/traditional women.

      • mikejones91

        Yeah nailed it. Thats why its also hard to explain. Ill put it like this–You meet a classy educated young white woman. If she meets a guy she is really into, and very sexually attracted too, she will more than likely have sex with him. Like you said–White women are more adventurous during sex. As in different “techniques” ect. Black women probably have more sex with the same 3/4 partners over a LONG period of time. Idk–Like I said, its difficult to explain. I feel as if you get it though.

        • Bon, From the Land of Babble

          What are you a sex researcher?  At 21?

          How do you know that “a classy educated young women meets a guy she’s “really into”will more than likely have sex with him??”

          How do you know this?  

          From your limited 21-year old experience?   And that makes it SO??

          How do YOU know that “White women are ‘more adventurous’?  “Black women probably have sex with the same 3/4 partners…”   

          Are you kidding??  Where on earth are you getting your information??  You have neither the education, knowledge nor life experience to be making such broad proclamations.

          You have NO idea what you’re talking about — “techniques” — what a LAUGH!!

          Go ahead — call me a “prude” — or threaten me like you did QD!!  

          As I and other have said many times here before:  Threats and insults are the last refuge of the out-argued.


          • Bon, From the Land of Babble

            What gives you the idea that “most” women want to fall in bed with a man the minute she meets him or after the first date?  

            That’s what whores do or women with no self esteem — give away the store to whoever comes along.  


          • Bon, From the Land of Babble

            I can hardly believe what I’m reading on AR these days. It seems that almost every thread is devolving into discussion about male sex fantasies, anal sex, masturbation, black vs. white sex and more.

            Anyone here wondering why a lot of women have left this site (I have read their posts on other sites) or why AR is having trouble attracting female posters — THIS is one of the reasons, women bashing and discussions about men’s sexual fantasies.

            Who wants to read about that on a White issues site.  This is the ONLY one I’ve ever seen where this goes on.

            It is because of types like YOU that women leave this site — because increasingly some of the most banal threads have veered into discussions about anal sex, etc.

            This is a WHITE issues site — or it’s supposed to be, not a male fantasy/porno site.  There are plenty of places to go to where you can satisfy your base desires.


          •  Bon:

            Another reason that some women have frustration with the general tone here can be found in the
            Marion Maréchal-Le Pen story a few weeks ago:  We wonder why women aren’t in our movement, but them find some problem when they win elections.  MMLP will save France if her aunt doesn’t do it first.

          • mikejones91

            Why would I threaten you? You haven’t offended me. I am 21, obviously. Now don’t you think my perception might be a little more accurate than yours pal? Everything I said is true and I will stand by it.

          • MikeofAges

            Were you born yesterday, or what? Nothing is universal, but … do you actually believe that a “classy educated young woman” doesn’t have sex with the guy she is dating? If she didn’t he’d move on. It’s the uptown version of rude maxim, “put out or get out”.

            BTW, if SHE ran into a guy who for some reason did not want to have sex, she would quit him. The single people who don’t when they have available partners are a defined-interest subculture these days. They’d better stick to each others, and probably do.

          • Bon, From the Land of Babble

            This is my final comment on this thread because it’s become tedious and tiresome for me to constantly respond to rude comments about sex from people like you directed at me.

            If she didn’t he’d move on. It’s the uptown version of rude maxim, “put out or get out”.

            Yeah, that’s the kind of guy I want for my 21-year old daughter!!  “Put out or get out” sure shows that a man has a lot of respect for a woman, doesn’t it?  

            Is this what you plan to teach your own daughter?  

            Honey, it’s OK to submit sexually to a man who tells you “put up or get out” because this is normal for dating relationships, sex is expected these days in order to keep the man otherwise he’ll leave you for someone else — also, if he doesn’t put out, you need to move on and find someone who will.

            Any dads on here teach this message to their daughters??

            Really?  Why not?? 

            BTW:  I teach high school health, including sex ed, for a living. I try to teach teens to have respect for themselves instead of thinking mindless, faceless, frequent “hook-up” sex is normal and OK (which is what they see in the media)  and that relationships are “built mostly or entirely on sex,” which is what they believe because  the media pounds it into them.

            For fighting the hyper-sexualization of our culture, free and easy sex, and especially the culture aimed at teens and young adolescents, and for trying to teach young people to respect themselves and their bodies I am called a “prude,”  “old-fasioned,” and a “dinosaur” and told I was “born yesterday”  by you and other people on this board.

            And people on here wonder why 50% of ALL children grow up in a single parent household, Whites are not reproducing and Western Civilization is going to hell in a hand basket?

            I deal with the wreckage of these insidious messages every single day.


      • mikejones91

        You know what, scratch that. White women have just as much sex as other women, they are just MUCH MUCH MUCH more careful and responsible. Birth control/condoms/ect. I have only met one girl who didn’t ask me if I had a condom. She was this Italian chick who had just come to this country. She was new and school so maybe she really wanted a friend lol. She though asking about condom would ruin the moment..hmmm.

        •    White women have just as much sex as other women, they are just MUCH MUCH MUCH more careful and responsible.


          • mikejones91

            See it bothers me that white girl gave that self degrading anti white answer. We are sexually boring? Which obviously translates to just plain boring, as in everything. Not true. Sure–Maybe the “average” black chick is having more sex. But the “average” white chick is more sexually adventurous. Not adventurous as in a ton of partners. Just more “open” when it comes to sex with a man she is attracted too. Translation–_Black girl–Missionary—White girl—Reverse cowgirl.–Is it really a bad thing that are women are having LESS sex but when they do HAVE sex they are just MORE fun, simply put. Its that way it. No way around. Accept, and celebrate. Our women have the lowest amount of STDs so we can celebrate that as well. Boom.

          •   Our women have the lowest amount of STDs so we can celebrate that as well.

            Oh, wow.  That’s really something to celebrate.  I would have thought that we should celebrate them for their intelligence, beauty, compassion….but no.  The real cause for celebration is that they’re better than the lowest common denominators.

            Again, don’t put that on your campaign literature when you decide to be our savior.

            Where’s Courtney from Alabama when you need her?

          • mikejones91

            Yeah pal, that is ONE thing I said we should celebrate. The celebration of their beauty/intelligence/compassion/EVERYTHING about their wonderful selves GOES WITHOUT saying. Nice try though.

          •  In ethical questions there is no simple right & wrong. What you’ve written is an example of morality divorced from psychology, which is divorced from sexual behavior. In other words- a recipe for disaster. I’m no prude, but I know history.  And history tells that:

            * only in underdeveloped societies – Tahiti, Polynesia, Africa- there is a sexual liberty for young- 13+ yrs girls. In all other societies sexuality, especially female, has to be suppressed during adolescence in order to preserve social fabric. Promiscuity leads to collapse, and civilization is based on inhibition & suppression (by the way, it was one of Freud’s great insights). Metaphorically, Babylon inevitably leads to ruins.

            * white females (and males) should at all costs avoid sexual mores of Africans & similar tribal groups. I think it’s evident why.

          • mikejones91

            Yeah, well your right because she is 15 but I am referring (generally) to girls 17-up. I don’t think it has to be suppressed. Sure, girls get thoughts that young but they rarely act on them. Only girls who are seeking attention do that.

          • Bon, From the Land of Babble

            How the hell do you know??

            We have a 21 year old here pontificating on morality,  blabbering about sexual and masturbatory fantasies and “pornifying” AR.  

            There’s no other way to put it.I also saw the threats you made against QD a few days ago, showing that when you don’t get your way or someone disagrees with you,  you resort to violence.

            I am sick and tired of reading about your grandiose pronouncements on American White women’s sexual behavior, such as claiming that “some 15 year olds are mature enough for sex,”  “White women are having as much sex as non-White women,”  anal sex (from another thread and others) and etc.

            Anyone who disagrees you instantly label a “prude.”
            And, as I and others have often pointed out, insult and threats are the last refuge of the out-argued.

            mike, you seem to believe that a great way to answer a question is through threats and insults. You cannot answer the questions or respond, so you resort to insults and threats (which have apparently been taken down), making your deflections even more pathetic.

             Calling someone “prude” doesn’t equate with having much intelligence.

            You need to find a porno site like, Porno Renaissance, where you can talk about masturbatory and anal sex with Brittnay Spears all day with others who harbor the same fantasies.

            These types of postings violate AR’s policy and degrade the entire site.


          • Bon,

            I keep hearing the “21-year old” in question saying that today’s adolescents are more mature.  How does he figure?  To me, it seems like today’s adolescents are less mature.  I guess his grounds are that today’s openly know and talk more about sex.  But that’s not maturity in my book.  Did the teenagers of yestergenerations not think about sex?  Sure they did, they’re teenagers, that’s what they do.  The only reason they didn’t talk about it all the time is that society put corks in their mouths.

            I think the reason why teenagers, esp. younger ones, obsess over sex, is because as the talk radio host who ties half his brain behind his back just to make it fair rightly says, most people’s historical perspective begins the day they are born.  A given 13-year old who has heard about human sexuality in the abstract for a few years before his or her hormones start raging thinks that that since he’s feeling it for the first time, this means that nobody else has ever heard of sex, and it certainly whatever his parents did his or her age plus nine months before now had nothing to do with his or her very existence.  Therefore, they do nothing but talk about sex because it’s new to them.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    I’ve always thought that men who engage in bowel movement sex in each others rectums and faeces are in serious need of psychiatric help.
    So I guess that makes me a “homophobe”, as well as “racist”?
    Yep, that’s me. 

    • Hm…. as you’re aware, there is hetero anal sex.

      • loyalwhitebriton

        The human anal canal is not built, or meant, for penetration. I would posit that any man who engages in “hetero” anal sex may well be a closet homosexual; or else, why would they do it?
        It’s not even “kinky”, it’s “Homo” (by definition – because the anal passage is the only penetration that a man can commit on another man).
        I would further posit that any woman who willingly engages in anal sex probably has psychological problems, ’cause it aint natural!

        • No, IMO, women who want anal sex with intimate partner see this at the ultimate act of intimacy & surrender. Besides, this area is heavily packed with nerves, so that it adds to pleasure. “Once you go anal, vaginal is banal.” Of course, there are numerous turn offs- mostly connected with hygiene.
          And- neither is mouth “designed” for penetration. But, let’s better drop the issue, it’s becoming too, eh…. pornographic.

          Yes. Lets. We’re not Masters & Johnson here. — Moderator

        • pc must go

           ANSWER: PORN… everything is getting porn-ified. We women just can’t compete with the porn

          •  To wit:


            This article goes on to discuss white people who have benefited from these visa programs.  Okay, fine.  So why is this article on Reuters India?

          • loyalwhitebriton

            I agree. Not only does porn provide the visual stimulation, it portrays fantasies too – including some pretty disgusting ones!
            No chance of porn ever being outlawed though; media execs and politicians are all obsessed with porn (being the generally depraved individuals that they are).
            Radical feminists also have a stake in porn. This may appear to be  a weird statement at first, but in fact makes political sense. Feminists (and women in general) know perfectly well that males are much more libido-oriented than females. Perhaps the proliferation of porn is a way to control males, by cynically appealing to base emotions?

          •  Radical feminists also have a stake in porn. This may appear to be  a weird statement at first

            I totally grok.  They’re also for prostitution.  The reason is that most feminists are men-hating lesbians, and therefore, are opposed to heterosexual relationships, because as Steve Sailer noted in that link I had above, lesbian women think they speak for all women.  Therefore, they think that heterosexual women are duped at best and slaves at worst.

            Ergo, radical feminists slash lesbians endorse porn and prostitution because they think that women deserve to be paid what “chauvinist pigs” expect of them for free.  Or, to look at it another way, they think men should never have sex with women, but if they do, they should have to pay for it.

          • mikejones91

            Yes you can…

    • Laura White

      MODERATOR : 

      Please remove that comment it is quite inappropriate for this august forum. 

  • Robert Hagedorn

    For something different, a change, Google First Scandal.  It’s relevant.  And it really is all about sex.

  • newscomments70

    I don’t agree with everything in this article, but it makes sense. Women should have access traditionally male careers if they have the merit and desire for it. There would be nothing wrong with another  Mdm Curie. Most women, however, do not want to be Mdm Curie. The NWO feels it necessary to obliterate the role of the wife and mother . I agree that this is wrong. Something else that I noticed was a photo of Justin Bieber. I don’t believe that is part of any agenda. That type has always appealed to young teenage girls and preteen girls. They simply relate to this type because of their age….similar to Donny Osmond, David Cassidy, Davey Jones…the list goes on. Most normal people find this type of music very annoying. I don’t believe that Justin Bieber promotion was meant to emasculate men. 

    • True, Bieber is not an example of “emasculation conspiracy”. Teen girls all over the world simply go nuts about this kid. I know- it’s ridiculous, but that’s the way female teen mind works.

      • newscomments70

        I don’t get them, but I could understand why they wouldn’t go crazy for Charlie Daniels or Ozzy Ozburne. I don’t watch TV, but I do see clips of it on monitors at the gym. The show, “Big Bang theory”, seems like a way to stereotype white males as nerdy and passive. And that offensive lesbian on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, that is definitely part of some agenda. I don’t notice most agendas, but I do notice the anti-white messages. That  is what fills me with rage. There are hundreds of examples of this on TV, that’s why I don’t watch it.

        • Now, this is another stuff. Cute boys & hysteria about them- that’s old stuff- the most adored “Beatle” was Paul McCartney- Justin Bieber being the latest demi-god of screaming teen girls. There isn’t anything anti-(White) male in all this.
          As for other stuff like Rachel M. etc.- there is definitely a manipulative aspect in promotion of aggressive lesbian agenda. But- who cares, normal men don’t like the looks of these surly viragoes.

    • Dan

      Females have always seemed to like males who are “prettier” than they are. I have also noticed that many females will seek friendships with effeminate or flamboyant gay males. Maybe it’s because this type of male seems less threatening and more in tune to their interests.

      • newscomments70

        I used to see that often when I lived in big cities, young women making friends with overtly gay men. It seems like a novelty for awhile, but that gets old.  Many females seem to like the “pretty boy” type when they are in their early teens, children basically. As they grow older, some just become normal, and some go for the “bad boy” type. The bad boy type unfortunately translates into “gangsta” types, on occasion.

        I’m speculating. I invite women to give their opinions.

  • WmarkW

    It’s an unfortunate coincidence of  synchronicity that the birth control pill was invented at exactly the moment in history that the black civil rights movement was in full swing, because they became linked in a strategically useful, though false, joint liberation movement.

    Women’s liberation never needed anything more than changing the way families thought about the need to make their daughters as equally viable as their sons.   Blacks needed to overcome a longer history of economic depression.  That’s why blacks often complain that white women have been the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action — women have no more family history of opportunity denial than men do, because men and women have equal numbers of mothers and fathers.  But the family legacy of non-intellectualism among blacks, passes down to subsequent generations.

    Sexual liberty is not reversible.  Birth control works to well (when used conscientiously) for procreation threat to be a major impediment.  Women’s educational needs will also prevent many women from marrying until 25, and you can’t expect abstinence that far into adulthood.  Since we can’t turn whites into Puritans, we need to:
    *  find another way to NOT need high-birth Latins and Muslims in white countries
    *  create separate but equally-viable career tracks for men and women, in which the latter can work “half a job” while maintaining work-life balance
    *  attract more women to pro-white philosophies by emphasizing how their “diversity” needs are not the same as the ethnic groups’

    BTW, I like the approach to gays in the article.  It’s a sex practice, not a demographic; they don’t need pride groups any more than oralists do.

    • Kurt Plummer

      Such innocence.

      Lesbian sexuality may be the greatest element of antiwhite dysgenics there is.

      For along with the combined birth control pill, the lesbian political ideal is one of setting up the mind with an alternative view of sexuality which doesn’t require the act to be reproductive to be functionally pleasant or acceptable.

      And since women associate more with women for the same reason men do with men (shared interests and behavioral understandings, the reason why gender behaviors often reverse for the first 3-4 months of a love affair is to make each partner more approachable to the other to increase the likelihood of reproductive success.  Indicating just how ‘primitive’ our reproductive behaviors really are…

      Natural Male and Female behaviors are actually stressful to each gender’s perception).

      Lebianism bypasses all of this by letting the sexuality come within the ‘comfort group’ in a manner which also undermines the ‘safety factor’ of gender exclusivity as being asexual in it’s social nature.

      Now add to this sperm banks and a social welfare system as the means to preclude love as more than a mating event at all and you have all the preconditions by which the ‘Scandinavian Marriage Model’ is the norm.  Along with a 1.25 TFR vs. 1.6 throughout the rest of Europe.

      All because white women in particular have been ‘remissioned’ with both physical and psychological invulnerability to the consequences of non-reproductive sexual behavior at any level of social as personal commitment to a conventional family system.

      I think you people are conflating the fact that women can be both penetrator and penetrated as a physiological consequence to experimentalism with the much deeper social-psychological consequences of telling them that they need no longer be our species reproductive insurers.

      For in ‘having it all’ as the symbol of a satisfying-without-males life, they now _choose_ to have **nothing**.

      Whether that be because they are truly unfulfilled at some deeply instinctive level of biological functioning (pregnancy triggers so many hormonal alterations to behavior) and refuse to acknowledge it lest they be seen as ‘traditional’ (weak and self-destructive in the literal sense). 

      Or if it is because they have truly undergone something like a developmental ‘telegony by example’ wherein, if lesbianism works then they don’t have to fear never knowing what a familial role is like because there is an example where women get along without men just fine.

      The result is that women have lost the instinctive certainty that to have a husband as a permanent mate and support mechanism is something to aim for by being sexually available and personally loyal.

      And this in turn is removing from men the incentive to commit to a far larger -economic- risk.

      For while lesbianism and social welfare is the norm of the European Model.  Divorce Court is what ruins men’s lives here.

      IMO, the only way past this is to remove womens’ reproductive tracts from the picture altogether.  If women see men with exogenically created children, superior to what comes from the womb (because exogenics allows both high hormonal strength developmental treatments, in-utero, and high failure rates with ultimate success), they will have to make some purely economic choices in terms of ‘what men are for’.  And those choices will force them to accept a return to the basics of decency and selective subservience  in trade for help in raising children.

      Of course, if current demographic trends in higher education and job access continue, it may well be that men are aced out of the family ‘busine$$’ anyway, as women have sufficient job security to avoid the need for joint partnership at all.

      Either way, it is foolish to underestimate the dysgenic effects of any social or sexual model which encourages women, particularly smart ones, from seeing the value of family as driving their personal choices.

      In the middle ages, after the worst plagues, one of the justifications of the church in their persecutions of midwives and other ‘witches’ was the ability of the latter to create abortofactants which interdicted pregnancy at a time when population regrowth was a driving concern.

      Don’t be surprised, depending on how bad we let this become, if a similar ‘white rebirth’ in a post fragmentation ethnostate U.S. doesn’t require us to take the same attitude with access to contraceptive and contragestive birth controls to _make sure_ that the drive and it’s consequences force the ‘family is all’ awareness back upon both genders.

    • JohnEngelman

      It’s an unfortunate coincidence of  synchronicity that the birth control pill was invented at exactly the moment in history that the black civil rights movement was in full swing, because they became linked in a strategically useful, though false, joint liberation movement.       
      – WmarkW
      What also hurt were Supreme Court decisions against censorship of pornography.  A magazine like Playboy would not have been possible during the 1930s. 

  • She’s overrated, but there are other great female scientists- Rosalind Franklin, Barbara McClintock, Sofia Kovalevskaya, Emmi Noether, Maria Goeppert-Mayer, Gerti Cory, ..

    Rosalind Franklin is, by many accounts, true discoverer(ess) of DNA, more than Watson and Crick.

    • Oil Can Harry

      Would those claiming Ms Franklin is the true discoverer of DNA happen to be the same feminists who claim Mozart’s sister actually composed his music?  And who always mention Madame Curie but not her husband Pierre?

      Still, I don’t disagree with your main point; Franklin and the other women you listed were indeed great scientists.

      • Generally, women don’t care much about exact sciences. Their “field” is literature. And it isn’t for nothing that in the 19th century English language literature- this is my opinion & of some eminent critics & writers like Walter Allen and E.M. Forster – perhaps the greatest fiction writers were women- Emily Bronte (the best 19th century English novel), Jane Austen (I find her boring, but, what the heck) & George Eliot- the most enduring novelist in her 3-4 novels. Plus bisexual Henry James, who is great writer in his “middle phase” (The Bostonians, Cassamassima, Washington Square, Portrait of a Lady). If I were forced to choose, George Eliot is the most satisfying 19th century English language novelist, surpassing Dickens, Thackeray, Hawthorne, Trollope, Melville (who is not novelist lege artis), Gissing, George Meredith, ..).

        I guess that matters more to women, more than submarines or statistical physics.

        • convairXF92

           >…or statistical physics.

          “There’s a certain probability that the air molecules in this room will in a minute all move over to that [far] side.  There’s a certain probability that they will all go to that corner and form the shape of Marilyn Monroe.”   –Prof. Ned Block, Science + Philosophy class lecture

          I (female) find that far more fascinating than 99.999% of the stuff found in (non-sci-fi) novels. 

          • That- Marilyn Monroe metaphor- is actually rubbish- although, technically, true. For God’s sake, I know what I’m talking about- statistical physics was one of my courses (mainly Landau-Lifshitz textbook, but also other works by Huang, and others, depending on further interests). I admit it was one of the most interesting subjects, along with Classical mechanics, Quantum mechanics & Field theory & Classical Electrodynamics (on the other hand, I’ve always found optics & nuclear physics boring & simply energy-taxing).

            What I want to say- most of the statistical physics is just plodding. There are few, very few WOW moments- perhaps Maxwell’s distribution, his demon, Gibbs’ derivation of laws of thermodynamics & quantum statistics rules.

            But, this is not the topic. Some females find exact sciences their chosen area of interest; most do not. It’s not either -or.

  • It’s true that homosexual men have transformed a vice into a virtue. However, most gay men will say they were ‘born this way’. Selfservingly, they may see race as a social construct but not their sexuality.

    “In its public displays as gay pride, hemophilia (? or homophilia) defines itself as narcissistic, exhibitionist, and infantile, thus revealing those traits specific to its abnormal condition

    Gay men can have their gay bars and their gay ghettos. They just need to keep it within their own communities rather than tell us that abnormal is normal. Like any minority, they want us to believe they are both the same and different from us. Like any minority, how they define themselves at any given moment is determined by their own self-intrest and self-promotion. ‘I’m the same as you so I should be allowed to get married’ or ‘I’m different from you so I need special consideration and special protection’.  

  • AmRem

    i wouldn’t care about homosexuality if it wasn’t made in my image 

  • I disagree with most of what’s written, but agree with mods- enough with sex stuff, we’re becoming pornified. The topic is more important than this or that position from Kama Sutra.

  • whiteguy

    RE: “I disagree with most of what’s written…”

    I think the point of this piece is to demonstrate the importance having these so-called “pornographic” discussions. The conclusions that some of us come to may be uncomfortable for others. Sorry. But there’s really nothing I said that you should “disagree” with. I didn’t say many things that were not obviously factual.

    “The topic is more important than this or that position from Kama Sutra.”

    The topic at hand DOES involve this or that position when we start talking about homosexuality. (In fact, Mr. O’Meara himself talked about at least two different positions in his piece.) You were the one who brought heterosexuality into the discussion, and I simply responded, so please stop trying to stifle the debate (that you started) by accusing me of “pornifying” the discussion. I’ve probably been the least explicit of all.

  • This is a long post – impossible to address most of its issues. But:

    * women initiate divorce in ca. 66% cases. Since this is a complex stuff, I wouldn’t use these statistics to blame women (I wrote some time ago that Amren was overwhelmingly male site & that was our weakness).
    Why ? There is no single reason, but the chief seems to be alienation & emotional distancing, not sex. Some high profile cases would suggest otherwise, but the “Cosmo” ideology is actually false. Women initiated divorce in ca. 60% cases even during 19th century, so it’s not something feminism is to be blamed for, exclusively. For instance, the following article is, statistically, a lie:….html
    You’re probably correct about crucial element in divorce rates: economics

    * stats differ for various developed countries:
    In the United States, 49% of marriages end in divorce.

    In Sweden, 64% of marriages end in divorce.
    In Canada, 45% of marriages end in divorce
    In France, 43% of marriages end in divorce.
    In Israel, 26% of marriages end in divorce.
    In Greece, 18% of marriages end in divorce.
    In Italy, 12% of marriages end in divorce.

    So- where men are still dominant, or religion is still serious stuff- divorce rates are relatively low.

    * I’m inclined to agree with Richard Burton’s (actor, not great polymath Richard Francis Burton) saying: “Woman’s world is her man, man’s world is- whole wide world”. It’s biology, not culture. But- modern civilization has enabled women dissatisfied with their men to break the circle. In all sincerity- normal men cannot fulfill inflated fantasies. Also- I think (most) women cannot  avoid being delusional re marriage. High divorce rates are just a byproduct of modernization in atomized societies  without strong in-group bonds (religion, nation, tradition). Too great an emphasis on individualism leads to marriage breakdown.

    • mikejones91

      Do you think there is any medium that can be reached between the “womans world being her man” and the woman also having some role in the “whole wide world”?

      •  Of course, these are happy families, my friends. For instance, a husband who is university physics professor, a wife an architect & two daughters (both students, one studies genetics, other art history).

        • mikejones91

          Well put, Bardon. What type of name is that? Like your ancestry. Maybe Jewish?

          • No, I’m Croatian, with some Czech, Bosnian, German and, a few centuries removed, Afghan Pushtu ancestry.

  • I’m not a traditionalist, nor horrified. Just- amused. Your proposal is hilarious & would work only in Thomas More’s “Utopia”.

  •  Which, in the end, results in suicide of their own ideology. If the group that is supportive of women’s rights (White Europeans) diminishes in numbers & power- it’s the end of those very rights.

  •  You anti-Semites are truly boring. I’ve given up arguing with you long ago. You just won’t listen to arguments.

  • Homosexuals need to understand- they behave increasingly erratically & annoyingly in normal milieu. Great men who had been homosexuals (Leonardo, Proust, Turing, perhaps Erasmus, ..) either kept low profile or if they were openly gay, strongly opposed provocative public homosex behavior.
    In the magnificent opening passage of “Sodom & Gomorrah”, Proust sardonically dissects homosex evasive behavior & fiercely opposes public displays of homosexuality. I tend to agree with him, at least re contemporary orgiastic homosexual “pride” marches & similar stuff reminiscent of Nero’s & Caligula’s Rome. Most creative homosexuals in history would, regardless of social pressures, denounce very idea of homosexual marriage; they wouldn’t even consider, if that was possible, some “same sex” marches & parades.

    That’s wrong with contemporary homosex subculture- they’ve become, literally, pain in the @ss.

  • Read any serious history of Jews, for instance Werner Keller’s or Simon Dubnov’s. Or, if you want spicy things, Yuri Slezkine’s “Jewish century” (the book is mixed, but has many interesting details). As for MacDonald & Jews, I’ve said it some time ago.

    A few things have to be said about Jews in the US.
    1. most are assimilated & intermarriage rate is- for ethnic
    Jewish organizations- alarming, ca. 40-50% (mostly with other Whites). High levels of ethnocentrism Kevin MacDonald & other Judeophobic ideologues ascribe to “Jews” are confined to a small, but influential circle of Jewish ethno- nationalists who do not care much about their host country- in this case, USA. BUT- most Jews in modern history- last
    two centuries- have strongly identified themselves with their host countries (Germany, Russia, Austria, France, Hungary,Britain, USA,..) & made crucial contributions both to their adopted countries & world civilization. What MacDonald, or Israel Shahak, describe is, speaking in terms of Jung’s archetypal psychology, “Jewish shadow”, i.e. the sum of vices & malignant drives. But- a person is more than the sum of vices and destructive drives. To reduce someone to their “bad”
    traits is simply a demonization & not an objective analysis of a
    person or a group.
    2. Jews are, considering their entire history, one of world’s great creative peoples. I place them somewhere near English, Germans and French among existing European peoples. Italians & Russians are close, too. Other peoples (the Chinese, Japanese, Bengalis, Koreans, ..) are, due to cultural differences, very hard to compare, and ancient – not modern- Greeks are beyond comparison at all: they were gods who had
    walked the earth. Of course, there are great destructive peoples- I’d say that Mongols had been in that realm what ancient Greeks were in the creative area.

    3. many AmRen regulars make the classical logical mistake:
    correlation= causation. True, many Jews in the US are involved in the activities not conductive to the health & stable, prosperous identity of the US (unrestricted immigration, SPLC, Soros,..)- but, this is not the opinion of most US Jews. Jews do not “run” Norway, Italy, Sweden, Britain,…, yet one can find in many of these countries patterns of self-destructive behavior noticeable in the US. It’s the decadent stage of civilization, something like attitudes of French aristocracy in 1770s & not the result of some devilish conspiracy.
    This is long enough & I’ll add that negative ethno-cultural
    trends can be reversed only through shocks & collapse of illusions and “safe fat life”. IMO, this will have ineluctably happened, but not out of blue.

    • IstvanIN

       Jews may be smart and creative but their goals are not the same as ours.  Undermining WASP society is something they thrive on.  They, or certainly a large percentage of them, have supported every major movement to undermine European-American traditions and culture.  Jews need their own country and we ours.

  • OK, I’ll try to be concise.

    1. Most Jews in the US are Jewish Americans. They are assimilated & have contributed enormously to the US prestige, wealth & power (Salk in medicine, Minsky in technology, Feynman in physics, admiral Rickover in the military- submarines, Milgram in psychology etc.) If you weight the good & the bad Jews in the US have produced, the good is incredibly more important & “heavy” than bad (Soros, SPLC,..). If I were forced to compare Jewish Americans’ contribution to the US good life, power, culture, influence & health to Mexican Americans’, it would be- metaphorically- 100,000 to 1.

    2. they are not enthusiastic about race realism since many traits of this ideology (Nordicism, social Darwinism,..) served as the pretext for genocide over European Jews during WW2. Add to this socialist and anarchist heritage of many pre-WW1 US Jews & you’ll see it’s perfectly natural they’re not  enamored with this ideology. BUT- they can be shown that their dogmatic liberal behavior is equally damaging to themselves- Blacks just don’t care about nuances who’s which kind of White. I know that it won’t be easy, but- why in the meantime alienate potential allies ? They are thick, but still can learn (although in small steps: )

    3. as far as “sexual revolution” goes- it’s way out of control. In most other parts of White world, it means 1-3 partners for females before marriage, 20%-30% divorce rate & ca. 30% male marital infidelity. Sex is an important part of human life, but to make it central to men’s & women’s lives- bespeaks of certain immaturity & ego centredness.

  • Some useful links:

    Men and women are raised with very different attitudes toward
    marriage. Though marriage rates are falling, popular culture still
    foists a romantic ideal of connubial bliss onto young girls. When I ask
    my college students if they’ve ever fantasized in detail about their
    wedding day, 80 percent of young women raise their hands. (Only about 10
    percent of the guys admit to the same.) Yes, young women are more
    likely to want to delay marriage, but their expectations of romantic
    fulfillment are as high as ever. Boys, on the other hand, grow up in a
    “guy” culture that sees marriage as the end of freedom.

    Put simply, boys are taught that marriage is about “settling down”
    while girls are taught that marriage is about finding enduring
    fulfillment. And it’s obvious who has the higher set of expectations.

  •    Modern, accessible “technological” porn is a relatively recent phenomenon- 10-20 yrs old (VHS, DVD, the Internet etc.). Historically, pornography has existed for millennia, but was absolutely peripheral to sexual mores of a society.

    Now, for the 1st time in history:

    * both genders, and especially males, can easily get visual injections of stunningly shaped female bodies that are out of reach for 99% of general population. They begin to develop absolutely unrealistic expectations about sex & life’s possibilities in the realm of sensuality

    * more & more young females are “botoxed” & shape their self-perception around promiscuous celebrities.

    * both genders are pushed in ME, ME, ME direction. Ego up, “soul” (in Whitmanian sense) down.

    * US White population is, various stats show, ca. 20%-40% more promiscuous than their European counterparts (except UK and Scandinavia).

    * still, essential human nature remains the same- just, it is bent under media pressure (porn being a part of it).

  • JohnEngelman

    The end result of the sexual revolution is the growing number of illegitimate children and children from broken families. Children who are raised to adulthood by both biological parents tend to do much better than children raised in other situations, even when other conditions are the same. 

    • lizinohio

      I am a white woman living in southern ohio and I have a son that I am raising on my own. My son is 3 and he sees his dad one day a week. On rare occasions it is 2 days. His dad is also white and we were together for 8 years before we made a conscious decision to create a child. 18 months after my son was born we were broken up. His dad was a general manager of an Applebee’s and I was a stay at home mom. My life was great. Apparently his dad did not feel the same way. My son’s dad and paternal grandfather constantly harassed me about going back to work (i was a waitress before I had my son so its not like I was bringing in loads of money) I didn’t want to go back to work I wanted to be with my baby. We were not broke or poor. We had enough money to live comfortably. But his dad wanted more and more and more. I felt as if I was very fortunate compared the rest of the human population. My family had food and shelter and good health. I was 29 when my son’s dad left me for a 19 year old server that was his employee. This was not a case of I got pregnant and got fat and then he didn’t want me any more. I am 5’7” 130lbs with blue eyes and blonde hair with a pretty face and nice rack and I never wear makeup because  I don’t have to. He didn’t want me anymore because I was focused on being a mom and not following jam bands around the country like we did when we were 20. Now I am working as a server again. My son and I no longer live in a house. I now live in an apartment complex that is a majority single mothers. I call it ‘the place where dreams go to die’.  I struggle every month with bills and food money. Meanwhile his dad is spending the summer following Phish around the country. And the girl he left me for…well she moved into my house the day that I moved mine and my son’s belongings out. But it only lasted a little over a year because she cheated on him with a black cook at work. I don’t look for another man because I find most men don’t want a blonde girl who doesn’t dye their hair or wear makeup. In my experience men are looking for a Kim Kardashian type girl. dark hair, lots of makeup, a closet full of 6 inch stilettos and of course no kids. And if you are intelligent this seems to be really threatening to men because they might have to carry on a conversation about something that is real. This is my life now. I used to get upset about it but now I realize now that there were a lot of things that were working against me that are out of my control. 

      •  Meanwhile his dad is spending the summer following Phish around the country.

        The very existence of Phishheads is akin to that sore on America’s back side indicative of a serious internal disorder.

        What gets my goat is the men, even middle aged men, who won’t grow up.  I have heard of men in their early 40s not only being video game junkies, but also hosting video game tournaments.  These are the same clods who think it’s a good idea to get married at Disney World.

        • Vil

          Some men really never grow up.
          I recently sold an expensive gaming-computer to a guy in his forties. But from how he dressed and talked you´d think he was some kind of 16 year old World of Warcraft/Star Wars nerd. When I sold it to him he was talking how he is going to brag about his new computer at “work” and giggled like a little kid the whole time. I had a really hard time treating a guy like that with respect and there are a lot of guys like that out there.

          It seems most “men” nowadays are either like lizinohio described, metro-sexuals or childish nerds with no self esteem. 

          •  I don’t think a lack of self-esteem was his problem.

            If he was going to brag about his new toy to his friends at work this must mean that:

            1.  His friends must be the same sort of overgrown little boys as he is

            2.  It must not be much of a business, for them to hire overgrown little boys like him and his friends.

            Nintendo lost me when they jumped from 8 to 16 bit, and that was 1991 when I was 14 years old.  Besides, I never had any time to do video games once I got into high school.  The last time I touched my 8-bit Nintendo before I gave it away to a family friend of my mother’s and his grandson was the last time I touched a video game system.

          • Vil

            [1.  His friends must be the same sort of overgrown little boys as he is.]

            He said something about working “night shift”, but his buddies there might still be overgrown little boys…

            You really haven´t played any of the Pokemon games? You should add playing them to a “Things I need to do before I die”-list.

          • mikejones91

            I play computer games as a hobby.

      • JohnEngelman

        I am nostalgic for the days when love and marriage went together like a horse and carriage.

      • It may sound shallow, but- you have a child; he’s got nothing.

      • alastairabbacle

        You are right, men have internalized the new Hollywood stereotypes leading to “slut desire” just as women have.  Good story.  

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        You married an immature BOY, not a MAN.

        In my experience men are looking for a Kim Kardashian type girl. dark hair, lots of makeup, a closet full of 6 inch stilettos and of course no kids. And if you are intelligent this seems to be really threatening to men because they might have to carry on a conversation about something that is real.

        Do you REALLY believe that?  That most men are “threatened” by a woman’s intelligence?  That most men want a “Kim Kardashian” type girl?  Your assertion is laughable and demeaning to men.

        You appear to be jaded and angry because of your experience with an immature boy who left you for a 19-year old, ignores his son and decided to take off after a rock band.

        A real MAN wouldn’t do that – real MEN take care of their children and honor and respect the mother of their children.  

        There are plenty of REAL MEN around, you just haven’t found one yet.  

        Good luck to you and be more careful next time, make sure you REALLY vet the guy before you get married — Dr. Laura always says it takes at least 2 years to get to know someone and I don’t doubt this for a second.   

        Don’t marry an immature BOY or a drug addict or an alcoholic or a gambling addict thinking you are going to “change them” (I hear this from immature high school girls all the time ‘well, he’s just going  to have to change’ — honey, he ISN’T going to change, you need to get OUT NOW before you END UP DEAD — as did one of my former students this past winter who wouldn’t leave her abusive boyfriend — her nude body was found along side the I-5 freeway, she left behind a 5 year old and a baby).

        A good book to look over is “The 10 Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives” by Dr. Laura — I use it in my high school health class and it’s opened a lot of eyes as to what my students “thought” they knew about the opposite sex.


        • While I generally agree with your statements, I think that all those self-help books are worthless (including Dr. Laura- gasp). People- men & women- live their lives driven by a combination of their deepest desires (which they, as a rule, don’t know) & psychological-social inertia. Their lives happen to them and they don’t actually decide, rationally, on crucial points in their lives.

          What is possible, in rare instances, that a person possesses a degree of inner freedom & detachment so they can -maybe- steer clear from evident disasters that await them- evident to all others except themselves.

          But, this is a small minority. For the major part of humanity, George Meredith was right:

          In tragic life, God wot, 
          No villain need be! Passions spin the plot: 
          We are betray’d by what is false within.

          • Bon, From the Land of Babble


            This generation is growing up in an amoral, valueless culture where there is neither right nor wrong. They are victims of something called “values education” which teaches kids to “make up their own minds about things.” Really? A teen doesn’t have the knowledge, life experience or education to make decisions about anything — that’s why they’re MINORS until 18 and cannot enter contracts including marriage until that time.

            Many have no guidance from home, only from what they see in the media which is what they think is “normal” and a representation of reality, or in their text books which, if they’re White means their vilified and if they’re not gives them a false sense of their abilities and potential.

            I know because I am familiar with teen culture — their music, which is often misogynistic, their TV shows, which are sexually explicit, their movies, their language which is sexual– the teen years is where it starts. They think this is the way the real world operates!!

            I believe this valueless, free love, free sex, anything goes if it feels good society and culture have left a lot of wreckage in their wake — disorientation, jaded attitudes, directionless young people who have no sense of morality.

            I hear “all men are pigs” constantly from the 18-year olds in my classroom because of the messages they’d been taught from the media (sex early and often) and the value (less) education they’ve received, i.e. there is no right or wrong, if it feels good, DO IT!!! (whatever “it” is) — after they’d been used, abused and tossed aside by men who “swore they’d love them for the rest of their lives” (used to get sex….). It is sad to see them so psychologically and emotionally damaged and depressed at such a young age!!

            Shouldn’t teenagers being hanging out with friends, going to the movies, going to the beach/parties, having fun?? Instead they’re worried about “hook-ups” — mindless, faceless, emotionless sex. Hey, if it feels good, DO IT!! They see it on TV all the time, hear it in their music, and in the movies the media directs at them.

            These things have consequences!! (including babies and/or abortions from these hook-ups).

            Dr. Laura gives wise advice in that book, don’t discount it!! I use it all the time, discuss it in class and the students can’t get enough — for many, it’s the first sane thing they’ve ever heard in their lives.

            This is tearing our culture apart, I see it in front of me every single day.


          • Well- what to say ?
            If this is so, use Laura, use everything to get them out of this infernal sensualist nihilism.
            Just, this moral crisis cannot last forever. Personally, while not being of apocalyptic mindset, I still sense that some upheaval – don’t know how- will have cleared the ground.
            In the meantime, one must fight forces of decadence.

  • Carney3

    I don’t quite understand why lesbianism is (and apparently has been) considered less subversive and dangerous than male homosexuality.  

    Women’s reproductive capacity is so much less than men, so women are the reproductive bottleneck.  Men are so fertile that one can easily take the place of another, while still also fulfilling his own reproductive responsibilities.  But a woman has a much harder time doubling her rate of reproduction.  One can lose nearly all the men in a society and yet the population can recover within a generation, provided polygamy is accepted and at the cost of a loss in genetic diversity.   But if one loses nearly all the women, it is a catastrophe that is much more difficult to recover from.  That’s why tribes that took special effort to protect their women, and felt extra anger at their death or impregnation from aliens, were more likely over time to survive and spread their genes.

    That’s entire basis of the sexual double standard, of chivalry, and of the greater tolerance of risk in men (such as in combat or dangerous work) comes from the reality that men are more disposable than women.

    Thus, the loss, from a genetic and reproductive perspective, of a portion of the male population to homosexuality (regardless of whether it comes from genetic or cultural influences) would seem to be much less damaging than the loss of a similar or even smaller portion of the female population.

    • True. Put on an isolated island 10 men and 1 woman. Statistically- every 9 months one new child. Put on the same island 1 man and 10 women. Statistically, every 9 months 10 new children. 

      • Carney3

        Odd story. Lesbians are everywhere in the military, but not in the enlisted ranks that mostly want to do one tour of duty and punch out with education, benefits, etc., but rather instead tend to be “lifers” in the officer corps. They are the ones driving the push for women in combat, while the enlisted women are happy to be nurses, secretaries, etc.

        Civilian lesbians, the serious ones, tend to be bitterly anti-military, because of their leftist and anti-male politics. The military is the sine qua non institution for them of male dominance and aggression, the source of the world’s problems. Why they would marry, not only males, but military men, is beyond me.

      • Lesbians, as a group, are c*nts, no doubt about it. They are one group I always go out of my own way to be rude to, just based on category alone. No other group do I categorically treat this way up front and personal. 

    • alastairabbacle

      That is why our White women being damaged by cultural brainwashing is all the more damaging.  Britney Spears. Nicki Minaj.  Lady Gaga.  The list goes on, as more young women become unsuitable mothers. 

  • mikejones91

    Lets leave religion out of the bedroom. Who are YOU to say what is “moral” or not? Exaggerated Example–Beautiful white woman who spends her days helping others. She treats people with mutual respect and is a considerate person. She helps those in need and does what is “right” by “god”.  But—She loves anal sex. Something about it just drives her crazy. Does this fetish of hers cancel out her “morality”? Of course it doesn’t. What people do in the bedroom is NO ONES business but the people in the bedroom. Simply put. I could could go on…

  • mikejones91

    Just because something shouldn’t be done, as in un-natural for the human body (which I do agree with) does not make it undesirable for ALL. Before we had video porn, obviously the idea of anal sex came from somewhere. Even if it was started by homosexuals, they were VERY secretive so I doubt it was just tossed around. I don’t know how old you are but maybe you have been to dance clubs before. The dance know as “grinding” where the guy is basically dancing up on the girls behind. Now don’t get me wrong, the way a lot of people do it (mainly blacks) is just primitive but put that aside. Your in the club and your dancing with this girl. Shes in front and your behind  her swaying with the music. The girl usually pulls you towards her behind so you ARE rubbing up against her butt ( if shes into you, obviously). It would be just as easy to dance face to face but something about “grinding” is desirable to a lot of women. Sexuality is a spectrum. Its a paradox to think of ANY sexual activity as “normal”.

    • mikejones91

      Heroin is un-natural for the human body. That doesn’t mean its NOT pleasant for the human body. I know drugs are bad and am NOT advocating drug use. Just using that as an example.

  •  Except of Derrida, other guys were Germans/Austrians of Jewish extraction (it could be some other- Engels was of French ancestry). And, these systems are frequently incompatible- Fromm & Marcuse tried to fuse together Marx & Freud, but failed (although Fromm is a good read in his popular books). I’m tired of saying this, but- read Leszek Kolakowski’s magnificent: “Main Currents of Marxism”, 1-3. This is by far the best & deepest work on Marxism.
    If you don’t have time enough- and you don’t- read Paul Johnson’s gossipy “Intellectuals”, the chapter on Marx. It’s very good, with only one misinfo- Marx hadn’t fathered a child on Helene Demuth. Johnson’s analysis of “The Capital” is the best short piece I’ve seen yet.

  • Trying to put most important things together, I’ll write an overview.

    1. traditional marriage was not a complicated issue. You got religion, tribe, struggle for survival & food, many children were valuable (they would look after you when you’re old & weak; perhaps, avenge you if someone killed you). Aristocracy had their own hereditary schemes etc.

    2. things had begun to change in 17th-18th centuries, but the true change came in the last third of the 19th century & the beginning of the 20th (socialism, Ibsen’s plays as feminist propaganda, Shaw, suffragettes, “free love” and anarchists,..). Actually- it was well meaning; it enabled women to get higher education, some sort of financial independence & voting rights. There was nothing anti- male, nor “anti-marriage” in these movements. It’s amusing to read hot debates from that period- Henry Adams, G.B. Shaw, August Bebel, Clara Zetkin, ….and opposing views from Nietzsche, Tolstoy, Strindberg, as well as cautious & skeptical writings of Freud. It’s a world that does not exist anymore- it was destroyed by WW1.

    3. ups & down all the way to counter-cultural movements of 1960s-1970s. This was the true watershed. If one analyzes the contemporary condition, a few observations on the marriage in the Western world seem to emerge (of course, I may be wrong):

    * as a rule, people don’t know neither themselves nor their spouses when they go “till death us part”. In the years to follow, they will end up disappointed- with life, with everything …

    * numerous books & magazines offer instant salvations for complex situations. That’s not realistic- there are too many different situations & expectations & disappointments

    * the combined influences of loss of religious faith, crass materialism, individualism & celebration of instant gratification & promiscuity and false religion of deified celebrities have shattered the institution of marriage- even more, a common life of man and woman with children.

    * what, IMO, is the truly big question: is this somehow “natural” for a materialistic & ego-centred civilization? Children ? There are hospices. Love and sex with special partners, i.e. monogamy ? Too many pleasures, from food to fornication, available for average people in quantities & qualities unimaginable in the past (Nefertiti & Cleopatra were, after all, not “knockouts” for modern beauty criteria). Men, fatherhood, success in  life & career ? Feminism has enabled average men to indulge in promiscuity far surpassing anything in past 6,000 yrs. Plus- children are not that big asset in man’s position anymore. Material status ? Women, motherhood ?  Well, this is also under attack:

    With all this (and more) destructive factors, the question is: is monogamous relationship between men & women, producing children (nuclear family)- salvageable at all ?

    In my opinion- yes, because – despite all shortcomings- this is, for vast majority of people (and especially White people) consummation of most of life’s expectations. In short, the main adversary of all these -isms is normal, healthy human nature.

    And you can’t win against human nature.

    • alastairabbacle

      I like you analysis, is allows for the naturally-occurring corrosive influence of modernity.  No, of course our current state of being did not come from a few yellowed pages of social theory.  

      Here is how I like to think:

      “Value fertility”

      In searching for a mate, fertility should be the first and foremost question.  Unfortunately, pop music, pop culture, and pop fashion and dissuaded this basic human nature.

      Healthy human nature has been subverted.  It is a cultural pesticides, the killing off of healthy young females and males, by cultural poison.  

      Value fertility! Only date those who will be fruitful, and multiply.      The slightly plump female is ideal, the gayman Cosmopolitan ideal of the infertile, birth-control riddled female is an anethma.    Baroque painting can testify to the desire of real men. 

      Fertile, naturally talented women.  

      • Hahhah… I posted two female acts, one from Rubens, the other famous Velazquez’s Venus, but Amren Victorians quickly deleted them.

        What to say ?

        No, I disagree, fertility cannot be the crucial motive for marriage, unlike 4-6 centuries ago. Women’s, and men’s positions are changed. What can endure is a marriage based on love, personal attraction & evolving intimacy, lust (at the beginning), joy and “work” on children & emotional-mental investment in family & social connections.

        This is, actually, demanding.

        • alastairabbacle

          I believe that “love, personal attraction & evolving intimacy, joy and “work on children, emotion-mental investment in family & social connections” all follow from preferencing fertility.  

          By fertility, I mean the European ideal of cared-for, maximally powerful offspring. 
          Here lies my reasoning:

          Sexual attraction should be aimed at it’s core purpose, that of reproduction.  
          “Sexual” union in its most powerful should be aimed at reproduction, to the benefit of the sexually unifying, and to the benefit of therefrom springing scions. 

          All talk otherwise, that of simple gratification, that of attraction to the strange, that is all a perversion of normal sexual purpose.  This type of sexual behavior will always occur, but it should not be seen as ideal of normal.  It is aberrant, temporary sexual behavior.  It is not aimed at the creation of a powerful clan.  

          Sex is intended to create a clan.  This clan should enhance your name, and support you in your old age.   Fertility is the sum of wealth, health, and production.    One is first to be fruitful, then multiply.   

          The fruitfulness is essential.  Fruitfulness is achieved through the sexual union with a person with good genes, a good supporting family structure, and good talents.  The multiplication, the support and love for onsself therefrom gained in old age, is earned through respect to fertility.  

          All dissuasion against fruitful fertility is a sabotage against the potential power of both the male and the female.  The male and female should create a well-off, powerful family together.  This family may in the modern times be smaller, but most be sufficiently large to offer support and well-being for the progenitors in old age.

          Social Security may be a large trick, 401k’s may fail, governments may come to an end.  Still beyond this, would always endure the family.

  • Eagle_Eyed

     Of course it’s a choice, much like the choice of murder is likewise common in nature.  It’s also a behavior which requires the active search for someone willing to have sex with you.  Now same sex attraction on the other hand may not be a choice.

  • alastairabbacle

    “Like the European New Right as a whole, he tends to be overly simplistic in attributing the origins of the maladies he depicts to the secularization of certain Christian notions, such as equality and love. He also places the blame for undesirable social/economic developments on cultural/ideological influences rather than depicting a more realistic dialectical relationship of mutual causation. ”

    I agree with this criticism, that it becomes overly simplistic to attribute maladies of modernity to trends in secular thought. 
    It seems to me, that modernity would have inevitably led to the current state of society.  Those who preached secularism and free love were merely foretelling that which was to come.    The Frankfurt School as such  was just foretelling, not moulding.  This relationship DOES need to be investigated more closely.  

    This does not mean it is correct that society is this way.  We must seek to apply the principals of organic food culture to human society.  Despite atomizing modernity, we can find a way to regrow healthful patterns of the human “plant”.  

  • It’s not that simple. For one- this “patriarchal” approach didn’t appear out of blue. It is present in all civilizations & may be summed up in famous passage from Milton’s “Paradise Lost” (expulsion of Adam & Eve): ” He for God only, she for God in him.” It represents something crucial about human condition- men rule & lead, that’s the lay of the land. Shakespeare knew this, too- for him, women are beings in some respect inferior, in some superior, but NOT equal to men.Back to the present.Most women do not want to be treated as fully equal to men. For instance, romance novels publishers (99% female readership) have several times conducted comprehensive investigation on the desires of the reading public about patterns of romance novels (plot, characters,..). Results were unanimous: the vast majority of reading public wanted the central male character to remain dominant & superior (intellectually, financially, volitionally,..) to the central female character (his future spouse).So, it seems that modern society’s natural position would be “soft patriarchy”, where females in a marriage have their own lives, financial autonomy etc.- but are, somehow, still dependent & dominated by male spouses. Absolute equality is not satisfactory, at least for most females.Of course, there are women who (“male brain”, character,..) don’t fit into this role. They are biologically hardwired for complete independence & as a rule don’t find-or even try to find- their life’s fulfillment in marriage (or similar union). In short- men are not crucial in these women’s lives.

    • alastairabbacle

      Where did you find this examination of romance novels and female fantasies?  I read a female romance novel once, and it tends to destroy your image of the female kind…

      “For instance, romance novels publishers (99% female readership) have several times conducted comprehensive investigation on the desires of the reading public about patterns of romance novels (plot, characters,..). Results were unanimous: the vast majority of reading public wanted the central male character to remain dominant & superior (intellectually, financially, volitionally,..) to the central female character (his future spouse)”

    • Ca. 7 or more yrs ago in some article – frankly, I  don’t recall which one- was published this analysis on romance novels readership. I remembered it because it was revealing. I’ve never read a single romance novel, so I don’t know the rules of the game.

  • Ironies aside, this is great (especially Nicolaevsky & Tucker). One could add Isaiah Berlin & Jean Ellenstein, but Johnson’s brief exposition on “The Capital” is, IMO, better than most others’, Kolakowski included (Johnson is more lucid & succinct).
    I wouldn’t call Kolakowski’s book on religion a booklet- it’s one of the best pieces on the subject.

  • Laura White

    You guys are all a bunch of pervs Please, LEAVE IT GO ! 

  • alastairabbacle

    “Enmity for Outsiders and amity for Insiders. ”  Can you imagine the success if Whites adopted this mindset?>

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Women’s magazines are the chief clue as to what women want. 

    Do you REALLY believe that?  The media have a nasty habit (by design) of portraying Whites, including women,  as what they ARE NOT — AND sexualizing everything.  Been to a PG-13 movie lately?  It is shocking what is allowed in movies that are targeted at young teens — showing them as over-sexualized, amoral and dressed like sluts.  TV too.  I was in the supermarket the other day and saw a Cosmo magazine at eye level that stated boldly “How to Make Your Man Scream for More Orgasms”

    You folks out there that have children, is this OK with you?  Do you think the over -sexualization of our culture is OK??  Kids today are SWAMPED with sexual messages 24/7 starting at a very young age.  Do they know more about sex?  NO.  Are they exposed to it more?  YES.

    I know this because I see it in the high schools all the time, the kids emulate what they see in the media and believe it is normal — well, according to them, ALL teens are having sex!! 

    And, as a high school teacher, I see the wreckage left behind by this — kids who are jaded, angry and disoriented by age 18.  Hell, the girls have given away the store, been used and abused — so what’s left?  Really, what’s left?

    They have no sense that sex is something sacred, the most intimate thing one can do — now, it’s just “something to do.”  Don’t tell me this isn’t damaging, it IS.  I deal with it.

    Media sexualization is used to demean, degrade and tear apart Western Civilization and White families and it’s working — object and you are a “prude” — to shut you the hell up.

    And it works.  

    But not on me.


    •  That magazine, “Cosmopolitan,” has the wrong title.  It’s for people who are anything but cosmopolitan.  BTW, it has about the same credibility as those “space aliens confer with Joe Biden” rags, that is, none.

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        IMO — it should be put with the men’s magazines. But, these types of magazines DO have a lot of influence on adolescents and teens even though they present a world that is NOT REAL — sort of like rail-thin models presented as what is the ideal of normal, beautiful and desirable, something scant few are able to achieve without ruining their health.

        Yeah, try explaining to an inquisitive 9 or 10 year old what “giving your man multiple orgasms” means.

        The over- sexualization of our culture, starting at a very young age has done untold damage.


        • “Men’s magazines.”

          Oh yeah, them slick rags that tell you how you can have a rock hard 6 or 8 or 10 or 24 pack really easy.  If it were that easy, every young man would look like a starving African beekeeper. As if the only thing men want is abs.

          I’m convinced those mags have photos of a few men from the neck down but photoshop in different heads.

          • Bon, From the Land of Babble

            Those weren’t the type of “men’s magazines” I was referring to.


  • convairXF92

     Keep in mind that animals have gayness.  One of the more bizarre zoology papers to be published in the last few decades described a gay male mallard duck that chased another male mallard into a glass wall, then raped the corpse for 45 minutes.  (Unlike most birds, ducks have the organs to penetrate.) 

    Ask any dog breeder about same-sex canine activity. 

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Interesting theory…

    Do you have any sources for this?  

  •  To me, it sounds like an ultra-quack. If anything, breastfeeding is healthy. And, numerous medical researches on various topics (eggs, vitamins & minerals re numerous diseases, blood pressure levels,…) frequently contradict one another in periods of 2-4 years.

    And don’t forget pharmaceutical industry & profits:

  • I am experiencing “Jew-fatigue”, much like celebrity obsessed people reported “Brangelina fatigue”. So, I’ll answer very shortly: Jews have been & are very useful American citizens, since they, as individuals, contributed enormously to the wealth & health in the US, from medical to technical discoveries, from entertainment industry to higher forms of artistic & intellectual culture. It is true they have never been prominent in WN movements, since they are, overwhelmingly, liberals. However, the contention that they “are never over-represented in organizations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority” is simply false- Jews’ sin, if one may say so, was exactly the opposite- they, historically, sided with Germans against Poles (in Silesia), with Germans & Hungarians in Austria against Western & South Slavs; with Russians against Ukrainians, Baltic peoples etc.

    Enough with it.

    • IstvanIN

       The US would have done quite nicely without them, thank you very much.

  • Mr. Rational

    Typo in the article text:

    hemophilia defines itself

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Calm down and knock off the insults.

    Did you even read my posts?

    You missed my point entirely which I made clear in my comments.

    A college-aged woman is 18 or over and therefore an adult.

    I object to the pornification of AR. I have seen this on no other forums except this one and I don’t think Jared Taylor had this in mind for AR.

    I am against 21 year old know-it-alls year olds coming on these threads and pontificating about how much they know about the world of sex, their prowess, how much they enjoy masturbating to photos of Brittany Spears, or how they met a girl and had sex with her the previous night — all of which have been posted here recently — and in violation ARs policies.

    Maybe you enjoy reading such comments, I do not and believe they don’t belong on a forum about White issues.

    For objecting to the pornification of AR, several people here have called me a prude or old-fashioned or told that I am a “clueless old person.”

    I come here to discuss White issues, not “hook-ups,” masturbation or someone’s prowess — or to be insulted. I’ve wondered if this were troll activity designed to get posters like me to leave.

    It’s working, especially when I read regular posters like you hurl insults.

    It debases and demeans AR — but then maybe that’s the point.


  • Some comments here are interesting &  close to what I’ve been saying all the time:

    Los AngelesReport Inappropriate Comment
    InflammatoryPersonal Attack

    SpamOff-topicSubmit CancelFlag
    article may be a good starting point for historically comparing marriage
    rates for educated vs. non-educated women, but it doesn’t go to the
    next important step, which is seeing how educated women fare while
    trying to advance their careers and have children. Some men may share
    housework, but I rarely hear of men leaving work to take care of a sick
    child. Look at the phenomenon of women leaving law practice after
    having children; they simply can’t work the hours required to advance
    their careers and raise children. The newly promoted CEO of IBM is a
    good example; in one of the articles accompanying the announcement of
    her promotion, it noted a pattern of women executives having few or no
    children. That is not an accident, and it needs to be discussed more
    openly. It may take a few more decades before that imbalance gets
    sorted out.

    Etc. etc.
    Women can’t have both highly successful careers in demanding fields & children. That’s trivial.

    • Andrew Dante

      Good piece ..BUT…the author misses a key point, namely..THIS IS NOT BY ACCIDENT! The Globalist-Zionist architects of The New World Order are engineering this DELIBERATELY. Have a look at this mind bending epic…

  • Excellent!!

  • At last I am reading the one article I had been waiting for so long in your over-racially oriented site.  Black race war is not the problem, for outside the pale of Contemporary western ideologies, Blacks know their right place by instinct even better than most Whites, without the need any slavery or apartheid (just go to India or to Madagascar).  Jewish preeminence neither, for Jews proved more than once in history to be on the side of white supremacism, and even the intellectual inspirers of it, as happened in apartheid South Africa.  They too, outside the pale of late western counter-culture, tend to be more conservative and more respectful of the host culture than the host population proper, even where they are the underdogs (just go to India or Iran).  Free thought (aka liberalism) and free love (aka romanticism) are the twin culprits for the present demise of the White race, the Black under-gifted delinquents and the Jewish over-gifted revolutionaries being mere instruments in that evil enterprise.

    The truth people in general now just cannot stand is that the human being’s abandonment to sexual impulses always results into more injustices of all kinds.  Sexual energy is just in perfect opposition to nurturing energy in all beings, and the Blacks who have kept their traditional civilizations, however primeval or downtrodden, always make a clear discrimination between the social spaces reserved for family life and those reserved for sexual experimentation (they know to be destructive and useful only for painful initiation purposes and promising good results only when the game is over).  This is the one wall of discrimination to be built anew in America, both for Whites and Blacks, not the ones of neo-apartheid around gated communities we see today in reaction to past free mixing.  The trend towards miscegenation we observe nowadays between White sluts and Black boys (not men) is to be explained in the same way as the trend towards gay sex, it is the same basic impulse against divine justice in any realm as represented by unleashed lust of whatever kind.  Sex instinct is a destructive and degenerative impulse, period.  And there is only one thing to deliver from it, a thing called God.  Even people of ideal genetic similarity or compatibility breed an equally degenerate offspring in as much as they indulge in sexual pleasure for its own sake when they mate.

    The parallel truth intellectuals in general now just cannot stand is the human brain’s abandonment to free-racing thought only results into more falsities of all kinds.  This is the one axiom of yoga as per Patanjali : union with truth is but the stoppage of all mind waves.   Prayer and free thought are perfectly opposite by nature.  A clear discrimination must be made between spaces reserved for prayer (or meditation) and those reserved for intellectual life.  The Jews themselves who have been the most over-intellectual people of the world (only since the Talmud became their main reference book) make a clear distinction between both activities and admit of intellectual pursuits only for experimental purposes of initiation (the Talmud is but one big koan to make you diffident of all conclusions you draw from mere reasoning), not for conduct of life.  The trend towards absurd social causes such as race equality is to be explained in the same way as the trend towards fads such as Kabbalah-inspired numerology, it is the same flight from truth the racing mind indulges into whenever unbridled.  The reason is not even a plot from the Jews’ part (although many of them are cunning enough to look forward to a pure personal advantage in accepting an agenda of global degeneracy), the reason is that free thought is a psychic energy consuming process of the same negative directional force as sexual debauchery, except that it is sublimated (as per the very doctrine of Freud), and thus is perfect solidarity with it.