The Decline of Western Man (and Woman)

Hubert Collins, American Renaissance, October 31, 2014

A conversation with F. Roger Devlin.

I would be very much surprised if there is a single reader of this interview who is unfamiliar with the writing of F. Roger Devlin. In addition to his frequent attendance at the kind of gatherings the SPLC reports on, his frequent book reviews and occasional essays have been carried by nearly every corner of the web that makes up the unauthorized right, and that has been the case for over a decade now.

Although generally very private, Dr. Devlin tells us that he is from Baltimore, and received his PhD in Political Philosophy from Tulane University. For those of you interested in familiarizing yourselves with the man and his work a bit more before reading on, I recommend his most famous essay Sexual Utopia in Power, along with his two more personal essays: Why I Write and The Academy: Reform or Secession. Below, Dr. Devlin shares his thoughts on literature, the late Sam Francis, economics, and much more.

What does the “F” in your name stand for?

Francis. I include it in my signature to distinguish myself from other Roger Devlins who may be out there. Once I was bemused to find myself referred to as Father Devlin.

Independent writers are invariably urged to create an Internet personality by maintaining a personal blog, or at least a presence on Twitter or Facebook. You have done none of this. Why not?

I prefer the discipline of writing longer pieces. We live in an attention deficit society already, and I don’t care to exacerbate the situation. These websites, moreover, are already being used as a form of social control. Remember Justine Sacco?

You have made your reasons for leaving the academy clear, and it is hard to disagree, but it is still quite impressive to put those critiques into action and just walk away. What advice do you have for those considering doing the same?

My own reasons were partly personal, and not necessarily a model for others to follow. I was encouraged by the examples of men like Russell Kirk and John Attarian. But I can’t recommend it as a career for men with large families to support.

Eventually we are going to have to create our own institutions, both schools and think tanks, for dissident scholars. Right now we do not even have the infrastructure for hiring full-time activists, as other ethnic groups do.

Do you value the writing and research skills gained from your time in college enough not to regret having attended, or do you wish you had never even bothered?

I use my education every day. In fact, I consider my main “occupation” to be educating myself about the world around me, and my writing as a byproduct of that effort. Yet long years of schooling are no guarantee of anything. I am frequently disappointed in the shallowness and conventionality of academics’ political views.

Young people should not go to college without a clear idea of what it is they hope to accomplish. Humanities departments, especially, are utterly corrupt. For many, it would make more sense simply to acquire an un-outsourceable skill through apprenticeship. Those who cannot advance without a credential may consider pursuing a cheap distance-learning degree while getting their real education elsewhere.

I understand you lived as an expatriate in Europe for a time. Can you explain a little about how you made this decision, and why you returned? Would you recommend that more whites “return to the homeland”?

I did some of my graduate study in Germany. Afterwards, I stayed in Europe to write my doctoral dissertation while teaching English. Such an experience can be valuable, but not unless you are prepared for it by learning languages and history. A sound education without time abroad is better than time abroad without a sound education.

How did you discover AR?

Back in 1999, the Council of Conservative Citizens offered Sam Francis’s Revolution From the Middle as a premium for joining. I joined and attended the national conference that year, where I heard Jared Taylor speak. So I began looking at the magazine on the web. I remember being impressed by Glayde Whitney’s article “The Biological Reality of Race.” I was used to empty academic blather about race, and it was something new to come upon an article written in a matter-of-fact tone by someone who actually knew what he was talking about. I still had a lot to learn, then; my own first contribution to the magazine came only in June, 2008. [See here]

I understand you knew Sam Francis personally before he died, and by all accounts he was quite a man. Unlike so many who knew him, you have written little about him; could you share a few of your memories of him?

I started reading Sam’s columns in Chronicles in 1997, and almost always learned something new. Later, I attended meetings of the CofCC National Capital Region chapter over which he presided. He was distrustful at first, because I tend to be quiet in company. One night I held forth more than usual, and before the next meeting I got a call saying Sam had specifically asked if I could come. So then I got rather less shy with him. We met for lunch one-on-one a couple times in 2003. He introduced me to Wilmot Robertson and racialist literature of a sort unmentioned in his Chronicles pieces. He was a blunt man who cared nothing for “the structure of prevailing taboos” (as Buckley termed it). Like myself, he was an academic manqué.

Setting aside adapted speeches, most of your writing consists of book reviews. With only one exception, you have not written a stand-alone essay in about five years, which is unusual for writers. Are you simply more inclined to analyze and reflect than advocate?

That is probably true. Partly it is my background in philosophy, which makes me like to pick apart arguments, discover concealed premises, etc. Moreover, I get plenty of my own thoughts and ideas across in this most modest of literary genres, and there is a constant demand for reviews.

While your reviews of non-fiction can be easily categorized into various genres (e.g. immigration, Nouvelle Droite, education), the same cannot be said of your considerably less frequent fiction reviews. Along with the reasonably well-known Solzhenitsyn, you have expressed admiration for the so-called Biedermeier writers of 19th century Germany, an affinity for ancient Greek plays, and enjoyment of one self-published contemporary collection of short stories. Could you tell us some more about what fiction you read?

The realistic novel is my favorite form. Favorite authors include Austen, Scott, Stendhal, Goethe, Stifter and the Russian realists. Classical Greek literature in all genres is the essential basis for everything that follows. Yet there are still embarrassing gaps in my knowledge of literature, including virtually the whole contemporary scene.

You almost always refrain from comment on contemporary American politics, and even review few books related to the matter (an interesting exception being Jan Brewer’s book, Scorpions for Breakfast); why? Do you read the news and try and keep up-to-date on what is happening, or have you completely checked out?

I am as far as possible from any lack of interest in politics, but I take a long term view of events in which particular electoral contests shrink to near-insignificance. The liberal system will not be defeated by electing substantial numbers of dissidents to high office; there is truth in the old radical slogan that if elections could change anything, they would be illegal. The liberal system will collapse of its own weight: debt, over-centralization, anti-natalism, all the perverse incentives it creates. As our old sources of national strength quietly dry up, the regime is distracted with exotic trivia like gay marriage and the search for new forms of discrimination to combat. Competition from China alone is going to put an end to this ideological navel-gazing in the not-too-distant future. We must position ourselves to present the public with a credible alternative when the crisis hits. This is my focus, not the shadow-boxing of Republicans vs. Democrats.

Your writing has influenced an incredible number of people across the spectrum of the unauthorized right. Your name has been explicitly championed by masculists like Heartiste, neoreactionaries like Aimless Gromar, and ethno-nationalists like Chechar. One can also detect “Devlinisms” in the writings of other regular dissidents, like Gregory Hood and Jack Donovan. There is even a blog now dedicated to putting all of your work in one place: Devliniana. What do you attribute this very broad appeal and impact to?

Political labels are context-dependent. In the context of feminism, I am a masculist; in that of hyper-modernity I am a reactionary; in that of anti-racism, I am a racialist. Fifty years ago, I might have been a Goldwater conservative, but the worsening situation, along with the cowardice and short-sightedness of Conservatism, Inc. have transformed me (somewhat against my own natural inclinations) into a kind of radical. This doesn’t mean there is anything self-contradictory in my views.

What ten books would you consider essential for right-wing dissidents?

  1. Race, Evolution and Behavior by J. Philippe Rushton, 2nd abridged edition.
  2. The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson.
  3. Taken Into Custody by Stephen Baskerville.
  4. The Closing of the Muslim Mind by Robert R. Reilly.
  5. The Solzhenitsyn Reader, ed. by Ericson and Mahoney.
  6. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
  7. Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.
  8. Anything and everything by Samuel Francis.
  9. Anything and everything by Jared Taylor.
  10. Anything and everything by Kevin MacDonald.

I understand that you have a new a book coming out with Counter Currents Publishing. Could you tell us a little about it?

It is simply a collection of my essays to date on “hypergamy and the female revolt against civilization,” as the subtitle puts it, along with a Preface, Introduction and Postscript. Some of the essays are lightly revised.

By far your most famous piece of work is Sexual Utopia in Power, which has even been noticed by the mainstream. Would you have ever guessed that this would be your defining essay, and why do you think that has proved to be the case? If you could change anything in it now, would you?

Yes, it is my most important essay. I meditated on it for years before writing it down, and the intention was to make points that I did not see anyone else making. The response has been gratifying.

Given the popularity, and obvious influence, of your writings on what can be loosely called “socio-sexual dynamics,” I would like to ask a few specific questions pertaining to this area of your work. The first four questions come from my sometime collaborator, Hadley Bishop.

One of the first elements which trips up readers coming from a more study/data-minded approach is that socio-sexual dynamics is very methodologically fuzzy. It seems you have hit on some important things in your writings, but your citations are sparse. How did you arrive at them, and could your method be used more widely?

My writings are essays, not peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian scholar Barry Cooper says this about the essay form: “An essay presents a point of view, not new information. It pushes investigation and argument to an extreme, and it does so in a mood of great confidence. The usual scholarly paraphernalia can be minimized, subtle qualifications and second thoughts can be dispensed with.” The reason I used this imperfect form is that I had too much to say to fit into any other. Testing all my assertions with double-blind experiments and control groups would be the work of several lifetimes.

No, I do not possess any transferable method. I got my data by slumming around the Internet on chat forums and pick-up sites, interpreting it with the help of simple evolutionary psychology. The result was eventually a new model of sexual dynamics that accounts for wives being responsible for 90 percent of divorces, epidemic bachelorhood, bad boys with harems, death-row inmates besieged with female fan mail, unprecedented female freedom matched by unprecedented female frustration with men, etc. None of this can be explained if you imagine that women are morally superior natural monogamists to whom ardent swains must prove their worthiness, however edifying such a vision may have been to our grandfathers.

How would you demonstrate (apart from citing observation and common sense) that females have less agency than males–that they are irrational, immature, irresponsible, etc.?

That’s one for the neurologists.

I’ll say this, however: Women can be made more responsible by being held responsible. Men do not like to do this, because being a man means taking responsibility. Men will even try to blame themselves for their wives’ unfaithfulness, and wives are happy to let them. You get from women only as much virtue as you demand, so demand a lot.

There’s a fairly strong correlation between high IQ and lower fertility rates. What’s the mechanism behind this? Is it that high IQers tend to be concentrated in cities with higher property rates, making it economically more difficult to reproduce? Is it that high IQers tend to adhere to the zeitgeist, that is, a feminist conception of gender relations?

Both of these are factors, but it may be more important that only intelligent people are forward-looking enough to use birth control.

Autonomy guaranteed through economic wellbeing seems to facilitate short-sightedness in average people, in that they discard familial relations and the desire for children, both of which are good for them in the long run. Given that prosperous material conditions are a key influence here, would you just wait out the ruinous economic cycle of collapsing fertility rates until it becomes rational to have children again, or is there anything else to be done in the interim?

Our current way of life is obviously unsustainable and, as you point out, it will inevitably become rational to have children again at some future date–but this may happen only after a collapse unlike anything seen since the fall of Rome. By that time, European man may be too small a fraction of humanity for his civilization ever to recover. Those whites who buck the trend and have children today may prove the decisive factor in our survival.

What do you make of today’s “hook-up culture,” “pick-up artistry” and the like? In light of your view that marriage no longer holds any incentives for men, it would seem that contemporary men’s obsession with “scoring” is merely a rational use of their energies. Do you agree?

Unfortunately, yes. Preaching morality to men is a waste of time. The laws must be changed.

Interestingly, Gregory Hood seems to view game as a kind of “sexual counter revolution”–while still others in our circles think of it as more or less the exact opposite. What do you think?

Women wish to optimize the mating market for themselves at the expense of men (cf. Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men on bonobos vs. chimps). “Game” works against this female (and feminist) tendency. For this reason, women invariably hate and denounce it. But that doesn’t matter; it only matters how they respond to game techniques.

Game can even be useful in finding a permanent mate, though it is not inherently directed to this end. But it is no substitute for restoring the legal basis of marriage. Game helps men only at the individual level, while perverse incentives affect the entire society.

Aside from learning an Eastern European language (as you once suggested), what would you recommend these young men do instead of pursuing such passing fancies?

Focus on being the best man you can be, not on what women think of you. Do not get serious about any girl unwilling to accept your direction, or who does not have sound principles and a long-term way of thinking. “Doc Love” is my favorite dating coach.

One suggestion you have made for improving the current state of sex relations is a “male strike” of sorts, in regards to both marriage and coitus. You mention that such a strike “was probably beyond the imagination even of Aristophanes” (in reference to his Lysistrata), and I am curious how you envision such a strike. There is a theme of “masculinist celibacy” sprinkled here and there in Western literature, e.g., the proud “man’s man” Hippolytus, or the antiheroes in hardboiled fiction who view women as fiendish distractions from their truth-seeking goals–or even just the male-only world of Moby Dick and many war and adventure novels. Should any of these be considered models, or is your vision more along the lines of a Lysistrata in reverse, almost akin to the strike taken by the productive class in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged?

I must acknowledge that a male sex strike is a rather fanciful notion. Someone has pointed out that even if you could get 90 percent of men to go along with it, the 10 percent without self-control would easily keep up the supply.

Still, something analogous to a sex-strike works at the individual level. As long as you are dependent on sex, you are dependent on women. This is disastrous: In a healthy relationship, the woman is dependent on the man. Women are attracted to men whom they sense do not need them. Master your sex instinct, be more aloof in the company of women and see if your interactions with them do not improve.

Socio-sexual dynamics and education are the two topics that you often address directly, while most everything else receives treatment by way of book reviews, which leaves readers without a clear picture of your opinions on a number of different issues. For example, how do you feel about libertarianism generally, and free-market ideas specifically? In your writings, one can find pro-market critiques of the welfare state and protectionism (along with positive mentions of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises), but there are also critiques of economism, a yearning for a more local economy, and sympathetic allusions to agrarianism and distributism. Furthermore, you have written for some publications that are quite libertarian (The Last Ditch), others that are fairly hostile to the ideology (Counter Currents), and others still that have a near schizophrenic variety of takes on it (American Renaissance).

There is an economic aspect to everything men undertake, and some acquaintance with economic principles is indispensable for anyone concerned with socio-political issues. This is why I have included Hazlitt’s little primer in my list of basic titles for the dissident. It will not make the reader an economist, but will make clear the roots of much fallacious economic thinking (even though Hazlitt’s examples are dated) and the difficulty of considering the economic good of society as a whole rather than of particular sectors whose interests are often opposed to those of others.

Economics is a science of means, of directing available means fairly and rationally to human ends, every one of which is non-economic. Economics thus cannot provide a sufficient basis for ordering human life as a whole. Economism is the fallacy of trying to make it do so, of confusing the economic good with the human good per se. Wilhelm Röpke got it right when he called for “a society with a market, but not a market society” in which economic relations swallow up everything else. He described economism as “a disorder of spiritual perception.”

Greg Johnson’s summation of Ron Paul’s program was perfectly apt: Paul wants to ensure that the little brown people who are taking our country from us will enjoy the benefits of a hard currency. This is the sort of confused priorities that come from having a narrowly economic view of the social good. Contrast Pat Buchanan’s view (quoting from memory) that “the economy is not the nation, and when what is good for the economy differs from what is good for the nation, the nation comes first.” My own ideal society would subordinate the economy to the good of the family as well as the nation, but this would still allow high productivity and incomparably greater economic freedom than we currently enjoy in America, especially for small businesses.

In the same vein, I’m curious to know what system of governance you see as most desirable: monarchy, limited republicanism, aristocracy?

There is no universally best political regime. In some ways, we could even use more democracy today; e.g., the general public has never favored mass immigration. Yet we also need a reaffirmation of traditional aristocratic virtues and a sense of natural hierarchy.

You seem to straddle the line regarding the Jewish Question. Generally speaking, do you see Jews as friends or foes in the quest for white identity and survival? And what do you make of Kevin MacDonald’s “Jewish trilogy?”

I have read Dr. MacDonald’s trilogy from beginning to end twice, parts of it more often. I think the interpretation of “cultures” as group evolutionary strategies will prove a crucial insight. Viewed sub specie aeternitatis, Dr. MacDonald’s interpretation of Jewish-Gentile conflict has a tragic quality to it: Conflict is not due to any misunderstanding which might be corrected, but to the intrinsic nature of the two peoples. Of course, in politics we do not have the luxury of viewing conflict sub specie aeternitatis, and we must do what is best for our own people. This has nothing to do with harboring negative feelings toward Jews or anyone else, but only with perceiving our ethnopolitical situation accurately in order to act upon it rationally. I work with dissident Jews who are willing to work with me, but I do not foresee any time when the perceived self-interest of organized Jewry coincides with White self-interest.

Outside of briefly mentioning Wilmot Robertson’s The Ethnostate in a positive light, you seem to have never grappled with the idea of a white ethnostate somewhere in North America. What do you think?

I’m in favor of it. The whole racial problem comes of having to share territory with enemies and parasites. Anti-white sentiment is merely an “ideological superstructure” resting on the “material base” of shared territory: Remove the base and the ideology will vanish overnight.

At the risk of condemning you to the fate of Socrates, do you have any advice for the youth?

I am not against political activism by the young, but your primary focus in youth should be on educating yourself. Read the classics, not the bestsellers. Be open to learning from a broad variety of sources, but do not buy into any big ideology or world-view uncritically.

For those interested in further exploring Dr. Devlin’s work, it can be separated into six broad categories:

  1. Socio-sexual dynamics, anti-feminism, and the state of marriage. See: Sexual Utopia in Power, Sexual Liberation and Racial Suicide, Home Economics, The Feminine Counter-Revolution & it’s Limitations, and Rotating Polyandry – & it’s Enforcers.
  2. The European Identitarians and the Nouvelle Droit. See: A Europe of Nations, Generation Identity Introduces Itself, Alain de Benoist’s Vivid Memory, The Rectification of Names, Human Rights between Ideology & Politics, and Rethinking Democracy.
  3. The state of South Africa. See: Into the Cannibal’s Pot, A Home of Our Own, Snuffing Out South African Identity, and The White Nation of Africa.
  4. The alternative/dissident right and paleoconservatism in America. See: Standing Tall, Paul Gottfried’s Terrestrial Railroad Journey, Immigration and the Building of a New Majority, Picking Up the Torch, and The Family Way.
  5. Education, and its general decay. See: Clamping Down on Free Speech on Campus, You Can’t Say that Here!, The Academy: Reform or Secession?, Brown vs. Board, Govt. vs. People: The Curious Course Of The Desegregation Wars, and Higher Education: The Impossibility of Reform.
  6. Immigration, particularly in America. See: Why Global Democratic Revolution (And Mass Immigration) Won’t Work, Sojourners And Subversives: Cataloguing the Treason Lobby, Immigration and Human Nature, and Designer Nation – A History of American Immigration Policy.

Those interested in reading Dr. Devlin’s entirely original work (i.e. not book reviews) should see: The Case of Victor Davis Hanson: Farmer, Scholar, Warmonger (Winter ‘03/’04, “The Occidental Quarterly”), Sexual Utopia in Power (Summer ‘06 “The Occidental Quarterly”), The Academy: Reform Or Secession? (Winter ‘06/’07 “The Occidental Quarterly), Adalbert Stifter and the “Biedermeier” Imagination (Spring ‘08, “Modern Age”), Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 (Spring ‘08, “The Occidental Quarterly”), The ‘ReAfricanization’ of the West (June ‘08, “American Renaissance”), Sexual Liberation and Racial Suicide (October ‘08, “TOQ” editor’s dinner), Home Economics (published in parts throughout ‘08 and ‘09, “The Last Ditch”), Immigration and the Building of a New Majority (June ‘09, “The Social Contract”), Why I Write (October ‘09, “TOQ Online”), CofCC National Conference 2010, Nashville, TN (June ‘10, “The Occidental Observer”), Higher Education: The Impossibility of Reform (November ‘11 “H.L. Mencken Club” speech), On Wilmot Robertson (October ‘13, speech at private gathering), The Question of Female Masochism (October ‘14, “Counter Currents”)

It should be noted, however, that Dr. Devlin has a knack for making a book review out of something that ostensibly isn’t.

There is also, of course, his book: Alexandre Kojéve and the Outcome of Modern Thought.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Hubert Collins
Mr. Collins was born in Taulkinham, but doesn't live there anymore.
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.
  • I prefer the discipline of writing longer pieces. We live in an attention deficit society already, and I don’t care to exacerbate the situation.

    I’m guilty as charged. I hope that is not a crime that draws the death penalty.

    Eventually we are going to have to create our own institutions, both schools and think tanks, for dissident scholars. Right now we do not even have the infrastructure for hiring full-time activists, as other ethnic groups do.

    Most causes and ideologies that are “successful” are successful in that they appeal to groups of people that already have money or power or are gaining money or power, for some other reason. Our cause will get more successful if people with money and power think that our cause helps them attain and retain money and power, or attach itself to a mass audience of people.

    Back in 1999, the Council of Conservative Citizens offered Sam Francis’s Revolution From the Middle as a premium for joining.

    Sam Francis wrote weekly columns, but his forte was the long form essay. He needed the freedom of a relatively long word count to develop ideas. That book and his essays in “Chronicles” are what you should read if you want to get into Sam Francis. Personally, I think his velvet gloved sarcasm, while present in his columns, was even better in his essay.

    I am as far as possible from any lack of interest in politics, but I take a long term view of events in which particular electoral contests shrink to near-insignificance.

    I’m a political junkie, so much so that I have been accused of being Michael Barone’s illegitimate son, the joke having a bit of pseudo-truth as he and my mother were born in the same year. But Devlin is right: I’m a junkie of a drug that is about to run out, and IMHO, and probably in Devlin’s opinion, too, the sooner the better.

    The liberal system will collapse of its own weight: debt, over-centralization, anti-natalism, all the perverse incentives it creates.

    Agreed, and it will fall apart in either one of two ways: Dissolution or right wing populist-nationalist despotism.

    As our old sources of national strength quietly dry up, the regime is distracted with exotic trivia like gay marriage and the search for new forms of discrimination to combat.

    That’s a matter of the law of diminishing marginal returns as applied to “civil rights.”

    Both of these are factors, but it may be more important that only intelligent people are forward-looking enough to use birth control.

    This is why “flooding the zone” (as its proponents have said exactly) of young low IQ non-whites with contraceptives isn’t going to work, because they won’t use it. It’s going to take either hard or soft mandated contraception methods that requires no per-time user input. E.g. Depo-Provera, Norplant, gonadectomy, etc.

    I must acknowledge that a male sex strike is a rather fanciful notion.

    Helen Smith, the wife of the Instapundit, has written a book about this, about men doing a combination of a sex strike and going Galt. I’ve thought all along that, other than the individual benefits for men who do, that the movement overall was going to be a failure. Devlin just provided the answer to why it will fail.

    This is why I have included Hazlitt’s little primer in my list of basic titles for the dissident.

    At first, I was wondering why Devlin put any economics book in his top ten list which should have included some Madison Grant or Lothrop Stoddard. But now that I’ve read his reasoning, I like it.

    Economics is a science of means, of directing available means fairly and rationally to human ends, every one of which is non-economic. Economics thus cannot provide a sufficient basis for ordering human life as a whole. Economism is the fallacy of trying to make it do so, of confusing the economic good with the human good per se. Wilhelm Röpke got it right when he called for “a society with a market, but not a market society” in which economic relations swallow up everything else. He described economism as “a disorder of spiritual perception.”

    Economics, being the social science of how people fit unlimited desires into limited resources, is and always has been one part mathematics and nine parts politics. This is why I am no longer hung up on any economic system, other than opposing the worst failed systems. As long as you have the three legged stool intact: High IQ/respect for scientific progress and inquiry, ethnonationalism and group evolutionary strategy, access to plentiful land and resources either in situ or by proxy, you’re almost guaranteed to have a prosperous society and prosperous individuals and families by and large; at that point the economic and legal system almost doesn’t matter.

    I’m also happy that someone other than a few of us here on AR even remember who Wilhelm Ropke is or why he’s important.

    Greg Johnson’s summation of Ron Paul’s program was perfectly apt: Paul wants to ensure that the little brown people who are taking our country from us will enjoy the benefits of a hard currency. This is the sort of confused priorities that come from having a narrowly economic view of the social good.

    Better described as the wages of ideological cultism.

    I am not against political activism by the young, but your primary focus in youth should be on educating yourself. Read the classics, not the bestsellers. Be open to learning from a broad variety of sources, but do not buy into any big ideology or world-view uncritically.

    All of our people should have some sort of prime keystone hobby that is not related to and has nothing to do with the cause. Not just for something to do when the cause drives us crazy and we need a break from it, but also to answer the question: What do we do when we win? When we win, we won’t need the cause anymore by definition.

    If we win tomorrow, and conventional politics disappears, ergo my day job disappears, I’ll probably be standing out on the corner of Manchester and Clarkson in west St. Louis County the next day wearing a sign that reads, “Will Do Calculus Tutoring For Food.”

    • Oil Can Harry

      Well said. Two points:

      1. I highly recommend Hazlitt’s book. Complex economic ideas explained in simple language.

      2. “…[A]t that point the economic and legal system almost doesn’t matter.”
      Actually, a successful economy does need a legal system that consistently upholds contracts and property rights.

      • Yes, there needs to be a competent legal system.

        It’s just that it almost doesn’t matter which sort of legal system driven by which ideology or worldview is implemented, as long as the three stools of prosperity are there.

        There’s way too much of a propensity for ideologues to give credit to their ideology for everything that goes right.

        • Peter Connor

          Emphasis on “legal” system–rule of law, not trying to “do justice.” That is what has wrecked most of our current system, giving corrupt politicized judges the authority to hand out favors. As a long time practicing attorney, I have been horrified to watch the evolution of law to just more PC nonsense.

  • Garrett Brown

    Has anyone seen the recent JC Penny ad? I have seen plenty of commercials that promote interracial relationship but I have never seen one that ONLY showed black men with white females over and OVER and OVER again. That was the ONLY option they showed. No Asian female with White men, no black female with a Mestizo, No White females with Mestizo men, only ONE specific coupling. It was sick.

    With our continuous decline I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually have beastiality, child pornography etc on national media.

    • Patriotic Veteran

      There’s an ABC program Scandal. The entire show is about nothing but interracial relationships. There was a promo for the program in a number of magazines and the internet where the main character, a Black public female relations crisis manager has her head pressed against the chest of a handsome, well built White man. When I saw this, I was so mad and disgusted that I got a headache.

      This is the sick, twisted agenda of the sicko libtards!

      • That show’s best demographic?

        Black women.

        They love that show for the same reason they came out in droves to vote for Bill De Blasio.

        • Ryan

          True to a degree. The show has a large number of White upper income viewers as well according to Nielsen.

          • robinbishop34

            I was a Nielsen household for two years. It was a pain in the rear end!

        • Peter Connor

          Well, they aren’t getting much attention otherwise….

      • Whitesneedtobebrave

        The liberals and the jews just want to promote interracial relationships and marriages. Just look at a facebook page ‘mixed race initaitive’ and you will see the most sickening interracial couples and their half breed offspring. Pity that America had come to this state. In a few years, this country will become a colored country and no longer a bastion of western civilization.

    • Peter Connor

      JC Penny is heading for bankruptcy…..

      • Garrett Brown

        I certainly hope so.

      • SentryattheGate

        That’s why it is probably a good time to complain to them about their offensive commercials featuring interracial couples! PR people realize that for every one people that takes the time to complain there are at least 10 more who feel the same way but don’t take the time to make a complaint. But on the other hand, they say that it’s the older, less tolerant generation that is offended and that soon those unenlightened folks will pass away, so who cares what they think!!! I think there are some people complaining; I’m actually seeing white people on ads again, and not just as the fat, bumbling, bespectacled white fools.

      • brior

        Along with Radio Shack and Sears,

        • Sheik Yerbouti

          What they have in common is turning their back on their white base and going after the “contemporary” market. I was more than happy to see Circuit City go down in flames. Traitors, all of them.

    • See The Future

      It ought to be against the law!

    • Massif1

      Interracial campaigns save money for companies trying to get blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, and others. Avoid these companies is what I say.

      • ThomasER916

        Burn those companies to the ground is what I say.

    • Vyncennt

      ” I have never seen one that ONLY showed black men with white females over and OVER and OVER again.”

      “With our continuous decline I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually have beastiality”

      Redundant.

      =p

      • Garrett Brown

        You’re a hoot.

  • Garrett Brown

    “but I do not foresee any time when the perceived self-interest of organized Jewry coincides with White self-interest.”

    Nor I.

    • Peter Connor

      Dual loyalties never work out well for #2.

  • Josh

    I read his essay sexual utopia. I immediately realized that one way of testing his theory would be to look at the rate of virginity between college aged men and women. If his theory is true, then there should be more male virgins than female virgins.

    I didn’t dig into this too deeply, but from what I was able to put together 25% of college aged males are virgins …which sounds like a lot. But it turns out that 25% of college aged females are also virgins.

    So the simple validation test failed. I think that a better perspective is this:

    Attractive people “having sex” is so prevalent in society (in the media) that below-average to average men and women (in looks) feel “entitled” to sex with attractive people. But the laws of nature dictate that this cannot be. Below average to average men and women are basically rejecting one another because they believe that unless their date is a 7+/10, it’s not worth it.

    • Sick of it

      Josh, good looking women today often hook up with rather ugly men, many of whom look like apes in the face (and I’m not even talking about black men per se). You’re living in the 50s.

      • Garrett Brown

        My experience as well. I cannot believe the men our local college girls date just for money. They bring them into the gym and I am just baffled.

        • Adam

          Has it occurred that they may be interested in man based on his personality as opposed to just his physical appearance or body? Maybe these women are not as shallow as you and sic of it seems to be.

      • See The Future

        Heidi Klum comes to mind

        • Aussie_Thinker

          What a tragedy that is.

    • JSS

      I don’t know if it’s true that both 25% of male and females of college age are virgins but one thing you must keep in mind is that females control the sexual market completely. From my own casual observations I feel very confident in saying that if you take a male and female who are both the same age between 20 and 35 that the female will likely have had many more sexual partners in her life then the male, especially if the female is just moderately attractive. I know I personally fall into your category of men that simply won’t bed down with a girl I don’t think is attractive to look at but I do know many men who are so sex crazed that will have sex with anything that moves, especially if they have some booze in them. I think the later type of guy is more common then myself. None the less I’m positive that your average looking girl my age has a higher notch count then me since she can get laid whenever she wants plus girls don’t value looks as highly as men do. Even the guys who will sleep with anything often go home at night to their internet porn where as almost any girl that wants sex besides the most hideous of them can get it. So comparing rates of virginity between males and females isn’t really as useful as comparing numbers of sexual partners and frequency of sex.

      • Women have controlled the sexual market since prehistoric times. Strong, protective men who could provide for produced offspring were a premium. Much like beautiful, healthy women were a premium for alpha males. Amren males, calm down and find a suitable mate. Amren females, calm down and help the males understand that it is more than power, it is productivity and protection. It IS NOT male versus female. It is ideology. STOP IT. You’re doing exactly what they want. Not talking directly to you, JSS. Just generalization. AR is notorious for ‘bagging’ on females (not ALL of you, note; but some of you). Respect each sex for what it can give to the race. Anything else is personalized and needs to be sent to the garbage bin.

        It has morphed into an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ world. Do what is best for ‘us’. Yes, we both have our strengths and weaknesses. Use that to our advantage. It IS NOT about us individually, it is about the race. It is about continuance.

    • You realise, of course, that someones status as “virgin” is self reported, right? Now take the next step and realize that its still looked at as a positive for a man to NOT be a virgin, and for a woman TO BE a virgin, and realize that the 25% of men was likely closer to 30, 40, or even 50%

      And the women? Oh yes, thats right, theyre probably closer to 20 or 15% if even that.

      But good job invalidating (lol) Dr. Devlin’s theory by completely throwing common sense out the window and not acknowledging the simple fact that social pressures towards the “ideal” would lead to some amount of false reporting due to shame or social stigma.

    • guest

      The larger issue–notwithstanding birth control technology–is what societies do to
      “de-primate” human sexuality. In the Victorian era, the mores re courtship, pre-marital virginity, etc, represented a filtering and screening process that brought
      a much higher incidence of quality semen into contact with quality ovaries than
      is managed in contemporary America’s “let’s do it” Festival of Lust.

    • guest

      You read his essay? The whole thing? So did I. It’s quite interesting and provocative.
      But how can you say…”I think a better perspective is this:”… when what follows — your final paragraph — is an argument made and expounded on in the essay? (with one exception, I concede — Dr. Devlin focuses on women; you are including men as similar in this way.)

  • SlizzardAjeosshi

    As i often mentioned i am not a white nationalist, still i love hanging around AmRen because of the great reading tips provided on a regular basis.

    This interview was no exception, i eagerly look forward to getting accustomed to more of Devlin work.

    Where i respectfully disagree though is with this assertion:

    Competition from China alone is going to put an end to this ideological navel-gazing in the not-too-distant future

    Now i don’t pretend to be an expert of modern East Asia but living in the financial capital of the world Asia and traveling on a regular basis to all the other newly developed countries in the area (SG, Korea, Taiwan and tier 1,2 and 3 cities in Mainland China) i developed the distinct impression that North East Asia is still on an ascendant economy trajectory but it is also at the same time already mired in a disastrous social, moral and intellectual decline that mirrors the West, sometimes on its own even more extreme terms.

    True the institutional pillars of Confucian ideology (school, family, seniority etc.) are still somewhat paid some token respect here and there, but i assure you the old Oriental type, hard-wired, stubborn, uncreative but tough as nails, patriotic and obtuse, greedy but disciplined, is dying a lonely and despised death.

    What is left is an appalling humanity made of entitled, mentally unstable, shallow, lazy and quite frankly more often than not fairly dumb youth.

    Marriage rates are very low across the whole region, fertility rates the lowest in the world, divorce is easy and widespread, cheating (practiced equally by both men and women) a normal occurrence of life.

    Androgynous underweight boys consuming cosmetics and haute couture at record rates, all on mommy and daddy credit cards of course, make up most of the under 40 male population, while women, even adult ones, invariably look and act like some anime bimbo straight out of some neckbeard dream.

    A complete lack of taste, coupled with an absurd level of conformism where the flashier the merrier, permeate the local consumer market. If you don’t have the means or the desire to conform to the mall squatting herd you’re quite literally pushed to insanity and suicide.

    The intellectual discourse has been nuclearized to levels so abysmal that would probably make even the average Kardashian fan cringe.
    You turn on your tv or log onto your tab and you are bombarded with some of the trashiest dance music known to mankind, Sex&the City clones, period dramas where ancient kings and queens look like scene kids and the invariable supply of gangsterism and school bullyism glorification.

    Professor Devlin it will not be Asia putting the final nail on the coffin of contemporary Western culture. There will be no Asian century for it is already ridden with a disastrous moral decline trailing the West by only a few years.

    It will be Africa with her meteoric demographic growth, her savage hatred, her unwashed poverty leading the revolt against civilization of the 21st century (possibly cemented by islam).

    This, unfortunately, will be the negro century

    • curri

      I think (following Spengler, though I’ve never read DOTW) Chinese civilization went into a phase of protracted senility a long time ago (from which it never emerged) and what we see today is mostly a local Chinese adaption of the the current dominant Western civilization in its late degenerate form.

      I could be wrong, but what you’re saying tends to confirm suspicions I’ve had for a while.

      • SlizzardAjeosshi

        I agree and both varieties of crass capitalism face numbered days, the Eastern front will probably hold up a bit longer due to (on average) a better grasp of basic math. In historical terms it will be an insignificant bleep.

        Neither the West nor the Far East currently have a long term plan to deal with 2 billion African negroes in 2050

        • Bardon Kaldian

          Why do you think when it comes down to countdown, superior civilizations will have been paralyzed ? IMO, African masses will be either successfully walled, or incinerated. Never, never had simply a mass of people conquered an organized & militarily strong society.

          • Sick of it

            Bantu tribes in Africa were able to do just that with regards to a number of ancient white civilizations that had suffered catastrophic loss of life due to the plague in addition to total economic ruin. Of course, those people did not have firearms.

          • Bardon Kaldian

            Bantus had never conquered a white European civilization in Africa. Even decimated Portuguese have held a strong grip for ca 5 centuries. The chief problems are white liberalism & universalism pushed to the extremes. But, as everything, this too is at end- just see the comments of most whites everywhere. What white Europeans need is a race realism articulated, and this would spell the end of multi-cult suicide.

          • DanielBrx

            There was off course the defeat of Italy by the Abyssinians in 1896, but since they were only driven out of the Ethiopian part of Abyssinia and were allowed by the Ethiopians to hold on to Eritrea you could technically argue that they were not conquered. And Italy off course got their second chance during WW2 and made no mistakes that time around. Furthermore I don’t know what your definition of Bantu is of course, but I guess one could argue that (most) Ethiopians are not really Bantu, but that’s a subject for another time.

            I’ve always admired Ethiopians for their defeat of a colonial power and the pride they take in it. is a facinating country even from a European nationalist point of view. I noticed during my visit to the northern part of the country how impressive their cultural and religious traditions are. They are the only Africans (together with their Eritrean cousins to the north) that were not Christianized by Europeans in the last half a century, but were already orthodox Christians (although they adhere to the non-chalcedonian branch). It is the only Christian country in Africa where the term Catholic is seen as an insult and where Christianity is not of the usual shallow pentecostal/protestant/anglican form I’ve come across in other parts of Africa. I have no quarrels with them, provided they don’t come to Europe in large numbers of course.

            I don’t know whether Africa will ever be able to produce countries that can be defined as moderately developed (around the level of Turkey, Iran, Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico etc.), but if there are any countries that I would have to pick as contenders it would be Ethiopia and Eritrea. The Ethiopians are doing better now economically and are engaged in an interesting quarrel with Egypt over a hydroelectric power plant on the Nile river, which is just one of the many, many infrastructure projects I have seen in that country. I wish they can prove us wrong and quickly develop their country at least to the levels of the above mentioned nations.

            As to your other point. I hope that liberalism will decline and people will see through the falsehood of multiculturalism, but I am more pessimistic than you are. The only way this would happen in my eyes is rapid economic decline, which would put pressure on this fake consumer driven economic system we have. No white European will riot if his stomach is full, flat screen TV is working and showing his favorite vulgar Hollywood films and professional football team. The shallowness of our people (especially our youth) is just mind-blowing and frighting (mind you I am talking about encounters I had with University students).
            I chuckle every time I read people on this forum mentioning the low IQ of Mestizo’s, Arabs and Africans. The superficial lifestyle our youth is leading is dumbing down our society so rapidly that I sometimes question the accuracy of these IQ tests. One could of course argue that we always had masses of poor and ignorant whites ruled by an intellectual elite. That may be true, but the masses seem to be getting more dull every generation.

          • Jonathan guest74

            That’s not entirely true. The Abyssinians defeated Italy in 1896. They did however win in the war that followed about half a century later during the second world war.
            Race realism articulated is not whats needed for Europe. We need nationalist movements gaining strength. The thought of Dutch people joining hands with Ukrainians, Croats, Romanians and other whites is not realistic. I think people in the US have no idea how alien this concept of whiteness is for people in mainland Europe. Off course in order to be Dutch you have to be white, but whiteness does not necessarily mean Dutch. Being white is necessary, but not sufficient. Cultural-marxist ideology will hopefully decline, but on the other hand when noticing the shallowness of our youth I really wonder if they have what it takes. I can not even discuss European history with college educated students other than some basic topics on WW2. They could care less about art, culture and science. Despite this I still am hopeful as much of the public wants at least a significant decrease in immigration. Thats a first step, but still a long way to go.

          • SlizzardAjeosshi

            Baldion first of all thanks for replying to my screed and for your fantastic analysis.

            To tell you the truth i am not scared of the rising tide of color per se or a complete perennial dominance of self-defeating liberal ideologies in the West.

            What scares me is the enormous and fragile complexity every industrialized society, both in the West and the Far East. relies upon.

            I’m a strong believer in a “you’re as strong as your weakest link” philosophy and by making our societies so incredibly sophisticated we also made them fragile.

            I forgot who said that Babylonian astrology was hard science based on completely erroneous principles, i think to a certain degree the same applies to our contemporary age.

            Our wrongest assumption was basically thinking that Africa could at least evolve toward a middle income (10k $ per capita gdp), middle iq (in the 85-90) range society, something along the lines of modern Turkey or Mexico.

            Many globalists, not necessarily liberal, thought African blacks could evolve far enough to have a stake in the new world order, instead of doing forever what they do best: sabotaging, hating, killing and destroying.

            The result is we are absolutely unable to cope with spontaneous combustion of African savagery, as we have a built a sand castle based on a free flow of capital, goods, data, people etc. All incredibly fragile institutions that can be shattered more easily than people think. Think about the Ebola disaster, where would we be right now if Ebola was actually a stronger, easier to transmit virus ?

            Yes we may stop and reverse the process, that would imply though dismantling a good portion of our current societal organization.

            Can we cope with that ? Can we survive life in a society so different than what we have grown accustomed to ? Are we strong enough for real military action ?

            Yes France can obliterate Africa but can they protect the rues of Paris ?

          • Bardon Kaldian

            When it comes to the pinch, human beings are naturally ethnic nationalists. Liberalism will fall apart before you’ve even blinked. Don’t make a mistake of extrapolating the current situation to 20 or 40 years.

          • SlizzardAjeosshi

            As a statistician of the Bayesian variety i can say it is point well-taken, i really hope you are right

    • Cid Campeador

      How sad but how true. And cursed be those living and those dead who set the wheels in motion.

    • So you’re saying that this is truly the dawning of the Age of Jaquarious?

      • SlizzardAjeosshi

        I suspect it is truly the dawning of the Age of Mohammad Musongo aka General Terminator Killer

        (some days i feel more pessimistic than others)

    • Peter Connor

      Chinese civilization has a way of reaching a peak and then collapsing to a much lower level. Given the disastrous condition of Chinese water, air, and soil resources, I don’t think it will be more than a generation from now.

      • SlizzardAjeosshi

        It could go either way imho. They are currently working on some interesting technologies that could help them crack through their structural problems.

        I’m referring i.e. to maglev transportation systems, vertical aquaponic farming, reverse osmosis water desalination plants and thorium power plants, all areas where Chinese technology is growing very rapidly.

        Their biggest threats, again it’s just a semi-educated opinion, lie in their growing multiracial society and the apparent societal decay displayed in most urban centers

        • CourtneyfromAlabama

          How much of that technology did they learn from us? The media enjoys touting the Chinese as the global leaders in this and that technology (electric cars, alternative energy), but it is always stuff that we invented and are usually still ahead of them in. They also enjoy exaggerating China’s ancient achievements as well.

    • DanielBrx

      I can attest to the points you make about Asian moral decline and replicating the West in that aspect, however the issue of African fertility rates are not as solid as you seem to think. Over the last two decades population forecasts have almost continuously been adjusted downwards due to total fertility rates (TFR) dropping substantially in many Sub-Saharan African countries.
      I can give you plenty of examples and reports of countries where a decline in child and maternal mortality, a decrease in the percentage of infected people with malaria, growth in the percentage of women that have access to (primary and secondary) education and growth of overall literacy, led to a spectacular decrease in TFR.

      Having visited numerous countries in Africa I obtained a good view on the situation there. I was especially intrigued by the Horn of Africa countries Ethiopia and Eritrea. Their history, people, religion, language and especially their development over the last two decades are interesting to examine even from a European nationalist point of view. Eritrea is only independent for two decades, but has seen a sharp decline in malaria (over 80%), under five mortality (over 50%) an increase in life expectancy (with 66 years its higher than the state of Mississippi) and as result there has been a steep decline in their TFR. At the same time it is locked in a standoff with rival and cultural peer Ethiopia which has led to many economic problems. Despite this the country’s capital Asmara is one of the safest in the world. The few whites there can easily stroll around at night (something I would not recommend in parts of (white) Moscow, Kiev, or Belgrade). Despite it’s impressive achievements in health, it’s economy is hurt by the border dispute with their southern neighbor, which has lead to an exodus of the youth.

      Ethiopia on the other hand is the only country never to have been colonized and has witnessed impressive economic growth over the last decade. Their GDP growth for the last ten years has been in the double digits. Even though they start from a low base, that still is impressive for a non-oil economy.
      I’ve witnessed up close the huge investments in infrastructure like hydroelectric power stations (the biggest one in Africa is being built right now on the Nile river to the dismay of Egypt), railways (over 5000 KM of rail being built in the coming 5 years), roads and airline services (Ethiopian Airlines is one of the biggest in Africa and a modern airlines that recently joined Star Alliance and purchased the new Dreamliner).
      The leaders of that country have carefully analyzed the economic model used by the Asian tigers (especially PRC, Vietnam and ROK) and are replicating that model (huge public investments in infrastructure, de-facto one-party system, attracting a growing number of labor-intensive investment so as to provide jobs to their growing population, keeping sectors of the economy like banking, telecom and power nationalized until they are able to compete with foreign competitors). If their growth rates continue (and they are forecasted to do so for the coming years), they can easily reach the GDP per capita levels of Vietnam, Morocco, Tunisia and many Latin-American countries within two decades. Their main problem in my eyes is that their TFR has not dropped substantially enough to rapidly decrease their population growth rates. They have many additional problems as well off course, but my main point is that you can not extrapolate the demographic trends of now into the future without carefully taking into account the many factors that influence that variable. Anyone with even a basic understanding of econometrics and statistics (especially Bayesian Econometrics) should know that.

    • DanielBrx

      I can attest to the points you make about Asian moral decline and replicating the West in that aspect, however the issue of African fertility rates are not as solid as you seem to think. Over the last two decades population forecasts have almost continuously been adjusted downwards due to total fertility rates (TFR) dropping substantially in many Sub-Saharan African countries.

      I can give you plenty of examples and reports of countries where a decline in child and maternal mortality, a decrease in the percentage of infected people with malaria, growth in the percentage of women that have access to (primary and secondary) education and growth of overall literacy, led to a spectacular decrease in TFR.

      Having visited numerous countries in Africa I obtained a good view on the situation there. I was especially intrigued by the Horn of Africa countries Ethiopia and Eritrea. Their history, people, religion, language and especially their development over the last two decades are interesting to examine even from a European nationalist point of view.

      Ethiopia on the other hand is the only country never to have been colonized and has witnessed impressive economic growth over the last decade. Their GDP growth for the last ten years has been in the double digits. Even though they start from a low base, that still is impressive for a non-oil economy.

      I’ve witnessed up close the huge investments in infrastructure like hydroelectric power stations (the biggest one in Africa is being built right now on the Nile river to the dismay of Egypt), railways (over 5000 KM of rail being built in the coming 5 years), roads and airline services (Ethiopian Airlines is one of the biggest in Africa and a modern airlines that recently joined Star Alliance and purchased the new Dreamliner).

      The leaders of that country have carefully analyzed the economic model used by the Asian tigers (especially PRC, Vietnam and ROK) and are replicating that model (huge public investments in infrastructure, de-facto one-party system, attracting a growing number of labor-intensive investment so as to provide jobs to their growing population, keeping sectors of the economy like banking, telecom and power nationalized until they are able to compete with foreign competitors). If their growth rates continue (and they are forecasted to do so for the coming years), they can easily reach the GDP per capita levels of Vietnam, Morocco, Tunisia and many Latin-American countries within two decades.

      Their main problem in my eyes is that their TFR has not dropped substantially enough to rapidly decrease their population growth rates. They have many additional problems as well off course, but my main point is that you can not extrapolate the demographic trends of now into the future without carefully taking into account the many factors that influence that variable.

      I don’t think we will witness anything like the demographic projections we have seen for Africa. If our governments in the West continue to contribute a modest amount of funding for health programs there, we will see the continuation of rapid declining TFR. This century will not be the African century. It will be the century where culural-marxism and multuculturalist dogma will be refuted and abandoned. I’m not as familiar with the political situation in the US, but I can attest to the fact that all over Europe we are witnessing a rise in Nationalist movements and pressure to completely overhaul our immigration policy. Oddly enough most people I question about immigration, seem to have a problem with unskilled Africans and especially Arabs migrating, but see no threat in the migration of skilled Asians. If there is a flood that will be a threat to my people, it will be the flood of ‘highly-skilled’ Asians coming here taking middle-class and upper-class jobs. That is the real danger in my eyes. A migration policy shift that will resemble the points system in Canada, or the infamous H1B visa in the US, is something we should actively lobby against, since that threat is less visible to the masses of European people.

    • DanielBrx

      I can attest to the points you make about Asian moral decline and replicating the West in that aspect, however the issue of African fertility rates are not as solid as you seem to think. Over the last two decades population forecasts have almost continuously been adjusted downwards due to total fertility rates (TFR) dropping substantially in many Sub-Saharan African countries.

      I can give you plenty of examples and reports of countries where a decline in child and maternal mortality, a decrease in the percentage of infected people with malaria, growth in the percentage of women that have access to (primary and secondary) education and growth of overall literacy, led to a spectacular decrease in TFR.
      Those countries have many additional problems as well off course, but my main point is that you can not extrapolate the demographic trends of now into the future without carefully taking into account the many factors that influence that variable. Anyone with even a basic understanding of econometrics and statistics can tell you that.

      This century will mark the demise of the false dogma of cultural-marxism and multicultural nonsense (at least for mainland Europe, I am not to familiar with the situation in the US). There will (hopefully) be a continuing realization that the current socio-economic model is not sustainable and our immigration and economic policies need to change.

    • OyVey00

      Hello, I’m not a white nationalist either. I’m mixed-race German/Iranian and more of a Japanophile than anything. So you’re not alone here lol

  • curri

    I’d like to know Mr. Devlin’s opinion of this:

    blog(dot)jim(dot)com/politics/neoreaction-and-identitarianism/

    …I say that for the white race to survive, it has to reverse the emancipation of women, for we cannot have families if women are equal, and whites cannot reproduce successfully without male headed families, and that for the white race to survive, we must end universal suffrage, for universal suffrage gives politicians an overwhelming incentive to buy the cheapest possible votes, and the cheapest possible vote bank is to import an unproductive foreign alien underclass to live on crime and welfare to outvote and ethnically cleanse the natives.

    • Rhialto

      My reaction is that women have been unleashed; White men cannot releash them. Women have political power (and economic and social power) and know how to use it.

      The best hope for White men is to convince normal women to use it for their own long term benefit, not to use it for short term self-indulgence.

      • MikeofAges

        There was the dictum “One man, one vote, one time”.

        “One woman, one career, one time” may not be literally true, but over generational time, the end result may be the same.

        Without a strong and fertile working and middle classes to replenish the demographic and feed the meritocracy, the population will fail eventually.

        When it comes to meritocratic careers, “One man, one career, one time” is not so far from the truth either. Men have other options, they can marry down or marry out. But what are the numbers? If the end result is a small family conceived late the arc still ends at the same place. If the marriage is out of the group, the children will not be ethnically like the father anyway. Don’t fault a guy for marrying out, always. Sometimes the choice is between an endless succession of cold nights and a life of fantasy and porn, or someone of another race.

        • ThomasER916

          You’re completely full of BS.

          • MikeofAges

            Completely Thomas? Not one particle of a basis for the idea? Hope you get back at this late date and make an argument. If you were sure you were right, you would make an argument, not dish invective. Lousy invective at that.

  • DaveMed

    I am very uneasy with the way many racial realists/WNs speak and think about women.

    Yes. As a block, they do vote in ways that are generally antagonistic toward our goals. There are reasons for this – not the least of which is the conditioning they have unwittingly endured since childhood.

    I just don’t see the sense in characterizing them as unthinking creatures who need to be led by all-knowing men.

    • Yes

      I’m glad to see at least some people expressing unease about this. I am a woman and sort of a closet race-realist. I enjoy everything Jared Taylor writes and most of what he publishes, with the exception of this garbage. One reason I will forever remain a “closet” realist and never make any attempt to connect with a community, on this site or elsewhere, is due to the seeming prevalence of such mindless misogyny. I do not even consider myself a feminist by mainstream standards, but the above is about on par with gender politics in some Arab country. No thanks.

      • mikekingjr

        A lot of us love you. That’s no joke.

      • GeneticsareDestiny

        I’m a woman too, and while the men in the race realist community sometimes go a bit far with their denigration of women, I don’t think mindless misogyny is that common here.

        They do tend to have a fairly conservative view of sex differences, but I think they’re quite right that men and women really are different on a biological level. And unfortunately, women do tend to be more emotional and irrational than men, which means they’re less capable of coldly weighing costs and benefits.

        This is why they’re so much more likely than men to think it’s acceptable to let in unlimited numbers of poor brown and black people. It’s the irrational, pathological empathy talking, which they quite often genuinely cannot control, and they will not realize the mistake they’ve made until their children end up paying the ultimate price for it (and by then it will be too late).

        Because of this, I do think we might be better off if women couldn’t vote. I enjoy having the right to vote myself, but I’d happily give it up if it meant liberal women couldn’t vote anymore.

        I also think everyone is better off if men are the heads of their households. This does not mean I support men being brutal to their women, though. It is never acceptable for a man to treat his wife (or any woman) that way. The way Arabs treat their women is appalling, and I absolutely don’t want it brought to white countries.

        It’s because I don’t want those men and their behavior here that I believe women must be more restrained politically and socially. It’s women who disproportionately support letting in Muslims. Strangely, the feminists seem to support this even more than regular women!

        Moreover, I believe that marriage and families are the bedrock of society, and though I’m not religious, I think divorce should be avoided in almost all cases (excepting situations such as serious spousal or child abuse). Women initiate most divorces, and the majority of those divorces are for frivolous reasons. The laws should be changed to avoid these divorces, even though it will make some women who are bored with their husbands sad.

        Sorry I’ve gotten a bit off topic, but the point I wanted to make is that it’s really not so bad for women in the racial realist community, and their beliefs about women aren’t quite as misogynistic or irrational as they might appear at first glance (and some women, such as myself, believe many of the same things as them). I post here often and no one has ever treated me badly or said rude things because I’m a woman. Most of the men here just seem happy to see that there are some women who believe the same things about race as they do.

        • Peter Connor

          Women are tremendously different from men in their thinking and attitudes for evolutionary reasons. Men evolved for a role of hunting, fighting to protect the group, and devising weapons and other devices. Women evolved with roles centered on childrearing and nurturing even of other children in the community, gathering, and compromise as a social adjustment mechanism. So men are bloody minded and long range thinkers, women are usually not.

        • CourtneyfromAlabama

          I agree with everything you say here in response to “Yes” about the differences between the sexes, with the exception of one or two sentences, and I have always expressed these same ideas on here that you have.

          But the things that have been said that women like myself disagree with, are the comments implying that women should be uniquely blamed for most of society’s failings, including with relationships. If men are the more capable sex, and they most certainly are, then it doesn’t make sense to blame women when society goes south ( and yes, I think some of the accusations and blame directed towards women on here after presidential elections as well as the stuff about 90% of divorces being initiated by women are over the top).

          If you look at any society or any race, the men lead, and the women follow. White American women are simply products of an already failed and liberal culture. Our society is currently the way it is because too many of our men are going with the flow as well. Our people have been flirting with unhealthy liberal ideas ever since the Enlightenment if not before. So while it is definitely true that women, through no fault of their own, are more irrational and emotional than their men in any society, I don’t think it makes much sense to be blaming white women mostly for our current state of affairs. Do you agree?

          There have been some extremely harsh and careless statements made on here that are very different from anything you have listed above. But this is why I have chosen to remove myself from it lately (not entirely like the other commenter above, but I am spending less time with the internet portion and focusing more on the time I have spent at conferences where the men present are universally kind). The men who say such harsh things on the internet appear to only be a minority of the overall movement, so it is best to ignore them. Plus they might be hurting in ways I am not aware of.

          • Men respect your women. Women respect your men. Do what is best for the whole. Men who cannot get women, readjust. Women who cannot get men, readjust. We CANNOT hate each other. If we, as a race, is to survive, there cannot be women-hating men and men-hating women. Find your mate. Have children. Fight against those who would weaken and harm the White race. Period.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            Agree

          • Well met, CourtneyfromAlabama. Men and women must find a middle ground or lose all.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            Yep that is exactly what I was trying to say above. I especially like your comments about “readjusting” and improving yourself as a person as opposed to blaming the opposite sex. We simply don’t have time for that.

          • GeneticsareDestiny

            “So while it is definitely true that women, through no fault of their own, are more irrational and emotional than their men in any society, I don’t think it makes much sense to be blaming white women mostly for our current state of affairs.”

            I agree; while women disproportionately support political policies that destroy society, no movement (not even feminism) can become powerful without male support and direction. Women don’t have the necessary drive to enact drastic social change without men leading the way, and women would never have gained the vote without substantial male support.

            Ultimately, we are where we are because enough men thought things such as feminism and racial egalitarianism were good ideas to enact those policies. Since men are the natural rulers of any society, it is up to them to control what direction that society heads in.

            The blame must rightly lie with those liberal men who failed in their duty to defend Western civilization and allowed their women to open Pandora’s box.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            Thanks for the well thought out response. In closing I would like to say that the differences between how white men and women vote really aren’t as substantial as people on here claim. I don’t think women should vote but I think right now our biggest concern should be the nonwhite vote. Sometimes I feel that people on here look at the womens’ vote overall and compare it to how white men vote. The way white women by themselves vote is far more conservative than how the women of all races combined vote and really not that significantly different from how white men vote.

          • Garrett Brown

            Courtney, have you listened to Devlin’s interview on Yotube? What did you think of his statements?

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            I will have to find that interview and listen.

      • SlizzardAjeosshi

        I’m personally against universal suffrage for BOTH men AND women equally but that’s beyond the point.

        What i believe leaves kinda uneasy lots of people in the race realist/WN community is the tendency displayed by many women to be sucked into the grievance industry camp: lots of women do really seem to think they belong to some kind of persecuted minority.

        Too many feminist scholars and even regular women in politics talk and act like Weird Al.

        Other than that you’re perfectly right, macho attitudes don’t do anybody any good.

        • Peter Connor

          I believe the old English system was good. Only property owners age 30 or over could vote. I would also extend it to married women with children over 30. Skin in the game….

          • Chris R

            John Stuart Mill had good ideas on voting rules.

            (1) “[No] person should have suffrage without being able to read, write [or do] arithmetic.” “No one will maintain that power over others, over the whole community, should be imparted to people who have not acquired the most essential requisites for taking care of themselves.”

            (2 “The assembly which votes the taxes ….. should be elected exclusively by those who pay something towards the taxes imposed. Those who pay no taxes, disposing by their votes of other people’s money, have every motive to be lavish and none to economize.”

            (3) “The receipt of parish relief [public welfare] should be peremptory disqualification for the franchise. He who cannot by his labour suffice for his own support has no claim to the privilege of helping himself to the money of others….. As a condition of the franchise, a term should be fixed, say five years, during which the applicant’s name has not been on the books as a recipient of relief.”

          • ThomasER916

            Literal skin, Whites only.

      • Peter Connor

        You really are a feminist if you ignore facts because they contradict your emotions and desires. Think, what other civilization has succeeded with women attempting to fill mens’ roles? Men really are better at some things, apart from physical strength. Of the top 100 mathematicians, or composers in history, what percent are women? Answer–0

        • Anonymous

          You obviously don’t understand the difference between differing means and differing standard deviations. If we look at mathematical ability, the people at the top are going to be mostly White males…and the people at the bottom are also going to be mostly White males. Same goes for musical ability.

          Stop taking the top 1% of White men as proof of the abilities of all White men. You are using apex fallacy to discredit the average abilities of White women and certain non-White groups.

      • CourtneyfromAlabama

        In response to “Yes” above, I would encourage you to come to Amren events and meet pro white men face to face like I have done. They like seeing white women at their events and act like perfect gentlemen. White women get a great deal of attention at these events. Most of us who show up act like ladies. Please don’t confine your opinions to what you see written on the internet. I agree that harsh things get said on here at times, but they don’ t represent the views of most of the great men involved.

    • Jimmy Joseph

      Once again, bowing down before women.

      Notice how the non White groups who don’t bow before their women easily have MUCH HIGHER birth rates.

      How come feminism is such a disaster for the Western world?

      I notice all the mangina White Knights are coming out to “defend” their women, while they vote democrat, have sex with non Whites, don’t have children, slut it up until their late 30s, etc.

      We can’t hold them “accountable” for any of these things huh?

      If they are people with such “agency”, why do they tolerate this in general among their cohort?

      Maybe you should visit some White feminism website once in awhile. You will learn that they STRONGLY support women taking advantage of men in these ways.

      • CourtneyfromAlabama

        I don’ t think men like DaveMed are trying to cover up for bad female behavior. I think they are saying that men, being the more capable of the two sexes, need to take more responsibility for the overall collapse of our civilization. This is not to say that women are sinless……….both sexes are full of sin, but I think DaveMed is mainly reacting to the one sided blame that appears on here frequently.

        • Jimmy Joseph

          LOL most women deny that men are “more capable”.

          Many White Nationalists don’t agree with that statement.

          If women are “less capable”, why do we give them a vote?

          If we take away their culpability for their bad behavior, then we should take away their ability to undertake bad behavior. Why give them a vote?

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            I didnt say above that women should be voting. I said they shouldnt be getting most of the blame for a society’s failings. Most white men I run into seem to support women voting as well as women doing many other things. Have you considered that as at least part of the source of the problem?

          • Jimmy Joseph

            I agree with that.

            White men who have given this level of power to women are part of the problem.

            This is why feminism has become so powerful due to White male weakness and apathy.

            Usually when this is mentioned, they will just go “blame the Jews” or something else.

            White men need to grow a pair.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            Well Jimmy, doesn’ t seem like we disagree on much of anything then. :-):-)

          • Sheik Yerbouti

            “White men need to grow a pair.”

            What does that mean in this century? ANY action a white man takes, particularly by themselves, opens them up for a shakedown by the legal system. Feminism is only part of the cause. White women also need to grow a pair, and support their men.

            Naturally I am not suggesting blind allegiance to someone just because they fit the shade, that would be simplistic and foolish. I’m only saying that knowing how the system is skewed can be a powerful temptation. But using that power to destroy a white man’s life, just because you can, is not helping our cause.

            And most of the people placed into this position are white women. The rest are white men of another sort.

          • Take away culpability from both sexes ‘bad behavior’. Respect differences and the strengths and weaknesses of both. Neither sex is perfect. Admit it and move on to make the race stronger.

          • Jimmy Joseph

            LOl that is a nice platitude but doesn’t really mean much.

            What do you mean by “take away culpability” of both sexes. That doesn’t make much sense.

            Everyone needs to be culpable for their own behavior.

          • For their OWN behavior.

      • NoName

        White men get too much credit here. Far too many of them vote Democrat as well. In the last election, most white women voted Republican and only 7% more white women than white men voted for Obama.

        • Jimmy Joseph

          Not when you compare single White women to married White women.

          Married White women appear to vote with their husbands. However, single White women are STRONGLY democratic compared to single White men.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            You are right about the differences between how single women vote vs married women. But we can’t ignore how only 7% less white men voted for Obama compared to white women. Either most of these white men had spouses who copied them with their vote or the differences between single white men and single women aren’t that different.

          • Jimmy Joseph

            I would have to see the stats comparing single White men versus single White females.

            From what I have seen, single White females vote almost as democratic as Blacks.

            Married White women vote overwhelmingly Republican.

            Younger, single White males are probably more Democratic leaning than older White males.

            Could be a lot of single White males in their 20s are voting Obama too against their own interests.

    • Bardon Kaldian

      Esp. led by “all-knowing men” like Tim Wise, Barry Soetero, Rush Limbaugh & Bill Maher (although some of them have had not few good ideas…)

    • Peter Connor

      The Welfare State is entirely a product of women, and specifically single women, having the vote. You are uneasy because you have been programmed. When the Welfare State collapses, there will be a lot of rethinking in what emerges.

      • DaveMed

        It is “entirely a product…”?

        I don’t think this is the case at all. There are plenty of parties who are interested in the perpetuation of the welfare state. I have not done much research into this, but my brother (who is studying economics) tells me that some major program that was begun in the early 20th century was strongly supported by wealthy people because they believed it would give the poor/”middle class” enough to be complacent and not present any major competitive threat.

        • Peter Connor

          Bismarck started pensions for working men in the 1870s, which were entirely funded by employers and employees.
          The sort of unfunded, something for nothing welfare we began to have in the late 1930s and that metastasized in the 1960s was completely different, as FDR was well aware, and designed to get the votes of women and the poor. FDR was told by his advisors that it would eventually lead to financial catastrophe.

          • Chris R

            I don’t think there is anything wrong with having temporary safety nets. Emphasis on temporary. And it should have certain requirements like community service, trade learning programs, mandatory birth control and non-citizens should be barred from receiving a cent.

          • A safety net is one thing, but certain groups of ethnic bloc-voters here have been permitted to turn it into a hammock.

      • Huh? Much of the welfare state in England and Germany preceded mass women’s suffrage. The rationale for the establishment of welfare states when they were established was tribalism.

        • Peter Connor

          I addressed Germany above. The county relief system in England was started by Elizabeth I, a single woman, and created an entire permanent underclass in England. The result was that the English lower class was the least healthy and lived in the worst circumstances of any in Europe. England didn’t need tribalism, it was one tribe.

    • CourtneyfromAlabama

      I used to involve myself in the pointless debates between males and females on here and then decided to stop. I got tired of being unfairly called a feminist ( by a very small percentage on here mind you) when I am not one at all. My argument has always been that men are the more capable sex. But if that is the case, it also makes little sense to blame women mostly for the failings of a civilization. It is that second part that has always got me in trouble on here.

      I would rather show up at conferences and have healthy discussions with the great men of the pro white cause, face to face instead of on the internet. I have gone to conferences ever since 06 only to be supportive. I don’ t go to be overbearing or to get behind the microphone. The men there like seeing women like me show up.

      It is only on the internet portion of the movement that I have been shown hostility, which is why I have chosen to avoid it lately. There are a lot of wounded people who come on here to type their thoughts and I have learned that it is better to let them do as they will, and ignore them, as opposed to reasoning with them.

      • DaveMed

        I think that the internet tends to bring out many people who are bitter and frustrated by their various failures or weaknesses when it comes to dealings with the opposite sex. And I think that this is the case regardless of the forum – liberal, conservative, HuffPo, AmRen, news sites, etc.

        Not much one can do about it.

    • OyVey00

      I agree. Women may have their faults, but us men do as well.

      I think the achilles heel of the woman is her empathy, which is not a bad thing per se (quite the contrary), but can easily overwhelm the ability to think critically.

      The achilles heel of the man on the other hand is his sex drive, which again is not necessarily bad, but also easily overwhelms critical thinking. Even highly intelligent men often make stupid choices regarding women that leave me facepalming.

      Consider that for every woman who unilaterally divorces her husband, there is a man who married a woman who would divorce him first! If men made rational choices in their partners, the divorce rates would go down rapidly.

      I do not believe that women should submit to their husbands or that they need to be “kept in check”. A good relationship consists of two partners loving and respecting each other. Love is the best recipe against divorce.

    • Anonymous

      I’ll tell you why White women tend to vote Democratic. (And I am saying this as a woman)

      1. STEM universities give just as much affirmative action to White women as they do to Black/Hispanic men.
      2. Women of all races, even White ones, can get welfare if they have a bastard baby.

      If you guys were strategic, you would try to get rid of affirmative action and welfare instead of getting rid of White women.

  • Lygeia

    “You get from women only as much virtue as you demand.”

    Women are their own independent moral agents and perfectly capable of setting the bar high with regard to virtue and honor.

    • Jimmy Joseph

      This hasn’t been proven in the White world.

      White female narcissism and destructive behavior has decayed the Western world.

      Notice how when feminism gained power, the White Western world declined dramatically.

      • Wrong metric

        The white western world has not declined because of feminism, but because of the increasing percentage of nonwhites. This is corroborated by an examination of non-white, antifeminist (e.g. Muslim) societies — all inferior to ours — vs. white, feminist societies (e.g., parts of Scandinavia), which remain advanced and civilized.

    • Peter Connor

      Obviously true, but doesn’t seem to be very common these days!

  • mikekingjr

    AWW come on! Everybody loves White Women as much as I do, right? I DO mean that. Wouldn’t be here without one Whom I miss the most! Love you Mom. (Hope I have the chance to say that when I am dying!) and THAT’S NO JOKE.(crying)

    • UncleSham

      Men always have and always will love women. This article says nothing about love, only power. I don’t know where you are getting the idea that just because our male ancestors had more power than our female ancestors means that the men did not love the women.

      • mikekingjr

        Never meant to imply that the men did not Love the Women. Must work on my articulation.

      • CourtneyfromAlabama

        I agree UncleSham but I don’t think the above poster was bashing our great white male ancestors who honored traditional sex roles. I think he was poking fun at a small percentage of our pro white movement who enjoy blaming everything wrong with our society on white women.

        • UncleSham

          Right, those people are a problem. It is unfortunate that some people have fallen into the trap of thinking that you have to either be a man-hating feminist or a women-hating anti-feminist. I think the movement towards eliminating all traditional sex roles from society has left a lot of people confused and frustrated. The ability of certain segments of the media and academia to keep White men and White women divided is an obstacle we need to overcome.

  • Luis

    I thought that when Devlin mentioned the left “needs new discriminations to combat”, he was describing the Obama regime to a T. The Obama regime has done more for promoting gay marriage than it has in creating new jobs. It has fallen in love with the notion of combatting “economic inequality” without even defining what “economic inequality” is. The Obama regime is also fixated on “going green” in this country, while at the same time importing millions of people; people who are not known for being “eco-friendly” in their countries of origin. How will they be expected to be eco-friendly here? The Obama regime loves to hype up “global warming” threats on the one hand, while expecting solar and wind power to meet this country’s energy needs on the other.

    I was also glad to see Devlin take Ron Paul to task – while Paul’s idea to audit the Federal Reserve for the first time in its history is a good one – he also wants more and more mestizos and other immigrants in this country.

  • Jimmy Joseph

    Very accurate opinion on women. This guy is brilliant on some of his points. I have been speaking about this in my posts. His female sexual dynamics discussion is very good.

    1) Women’s morality is dependent on ACCOUNTABILITY. If men don’t hold them accountable for their poor behavior, women will act like they do in modern ages. They will act as sluts until mid to late 30s, when they consider marriage to some beta chump they can divorce 5 to 10 years later.

    2) A “male strike” can work in that it collapses the economic basis of the society. I don’t agree that if 90% of men strike, the other 10% could make up for it. If only 10-20% of White males decide to stop working, our economic output would collapse. This would cause the collapse of the West more quickly.

    3) I don’t see White males waking up until there is a collapse. Unfortunately, by this point of time, it will likely be too late. This is due to the very low segment of the population that the Whites have become. Whites better wake up to feminism.

  • Bardon Kaldian

    Interesting, frequently right- but also narrow, simplistic,…

    Just a few points I disagree with.

    1. Mr. Devlin has written extensively (I’ve read some of his texts) on male-female dynamics & female sexuality. I think his ideas pretty well describe the situation in middle-class and “intellectual” circles of Anglosphere & Northern Europe, but are not as universal as the author would think they are. For instance, they do not apply to most Central & Eastern Europeans, let alone other, non-white cultures & civilizations. Heck, they don’t apply to the French !

    Devlin is right when he muses about masochistic component of female sexuality, but he’s certainly figured the big picture wrong. He seems to think that, sexually, females are turned on by male aggression, brutality, “gorillity” etc. This is just an aspect of a broader truth: women are attracted to male power & dominance, which can be physical- but also intellectual, social, financial, whatever. Doesn’t he know that legendary lovers, most successful womanizers- perhaps this is a shallow description, lovers is better- have been Raphael, Goethe, Chopin, Franz Liszt, Victor Hugo, Lord Byron, Pushkin,… in short, artistic “celebrities”- not a particularly masculine bunch ? Google Taki mag myth of effeminate poet Somerset. Or Jean Paul Sartre, that ugly dwarf who dominated his ever-expanding harem ? Or, if we remove creativity, contemporary celebrities (movies, music) who are also not too “masculine”, according to stereotypes. It’s glory, dominance, fame, success, power, … that females are usually attracted to, not physicality as such, let alone physical abuse. Rape fantasies are about dominance, not about actual rape.
    Perhaps Mr. Devlin’s perception is molded by his American identity, where dominance is frequently identified with physical and/or financial power.

    2. as regards female morality, this too is “Anglospheroid”. Devlin is right when he- implicitly- agrees with Lawrence Kohlberg & other researchers (especially child and developmental psychologists) that men, ideally, are more inclined to be governed by abstract moral principles, and women by empathy. But, there are numerous strata of morality, and very few men & women attain to higher levels of morality. In sum- most men & women are opportunists, yes-sayers & moral cowards. Such is life. Where Devlin is- IMO- wrong is his denial of female moral autonomy. Judging both from personal experience & various studies, this is not true. Women are no less moral than men, on average. Just, their way to morality is more through “heart”, than through “mind”. Mr. Devlin is- at least it looks like- rather sympathetic towards eastern Europeans. Well, hasn’t he heard of Decembrists’ wives ? His ideas about female morality seem to be that of an embittered romantic.

    3. Devlin’s ideas about Jews & Jewish identity are partially right and generally wrong. His “guru” about the subject is Kevin MacDonald, whose trilogy is a mixed bag, but central ideas are simply- wrong. In short: Judaism is not some evolutionary strategy, but an authentic ethnic religious culture- something like Zoroastrianism. Until emancipation in the beginning of the 19th C, Jews had led mostly separate lives (in Christian and Islamic countries) & did not contribute, significantly, to Western -or any other- cultural development & upheavals. From early 1800s to the present, assimilated Jews have been prominent in many fields (as we all know). But, they are assimilated. Most of them thought of themselves as Germans, French, Russians,..and not primarily as Jews. Some, of course, did have a primary Jewish loyalty, but they were in minority. Intermarriage among Jewish Germans in wake of Hitler’s rise to power was close to 50%, and in most Western countries, now, is between 50% and 80%. It’s ethnic meltdown. Einstein was right when he observed: “If it were not for anti- Semitism, Jews would have dispersed among host peoples like leaves in the wind.”

    On the other hand, Mr. Devlin is right when he speaks of “organized Jewry”. These are Zionists, Jewish identitarians, whatnot… This segment is liberal to the core & is, especially in the US, more or less opposed to America as a historically white European country. Just- they comprise maybe 10-15% of all people who self-identify as “Jews” in the US. In European countries the situation is, re Jewish identity or organized “power” even more fragile. There is no significant Jewish influence (as Jewish-identitarian) in Italy, Russia, France, Sweden, Germany, Spain,… Liberalism and multiculturalism are products of white European culture at this stage of decadence, and not some imaginary Jewish conspiracy.

    4. at the end, Mr. Devlin sounds like a nostalgic conservative (“things were better back in the Eisenhower era”). Also, he seems to be fascinated by fertility & “raw numbers” of human masses. IMO, all this is naive. We are now in different position from Romans 400 A.D. Romans were not equal to organized & militarily trained masses of “barbarians”.

    But, contemporary situation is fundamentally different. Science & technology are the crucial factor. Even second rate power like France can (nuclear submarines) wipe all human life from Africa and India. And I won’t elaborate on true powers, the US and Russia. Devlin thinks that liberal ideology (diversity, ethnic swamping through immigration, gender lunacies,..) are here to stay until the bitter demise of white Europeans.

    This is, IMO, completely unsubstantiated prediction.

  • Bardon Kaldian
  • Great informative interview, will be checking out more of his work soon.

    White people need a country of their own.
    Northwestfront(dot)org

  • A great interview and compendium from a brilliant mind.

  • Peter Connor

    The essay regarding Victor Davis Hanson and the Greeks is phenomenal.

  • Whitesneedtobebrave

    I live in North Carolina and many white women have voted for Kay Hagan because she is a woman, but they do not seem to care that Kay Hagan is a democrat that just wants to destroy America. Women have to keep their selfish desires aside and vote for their race and not bow down to liberal ideas just because they seem promising.

  • Tim Lando

    I can honestly say, without hyperbole, that F Roger Devlin has changed my life.

  • robinbishop34

    White girls can be SO stupid. The photo makes me nauseous.

  • Whitesneedtobebrave

    The Jews have always tried to destroy the white race by making it cool that it is trendy and fashionable to be down with a negro. After WW-2, the Jews started promoting interracial relations with their musical ‘South Pacific’. Even though Rogers & Hammerstein received flak for that, they refused to apologize. Just are our misfortune.
    Just look at the TV shows promoting that. Even in Britain they are doing the same thing. I saw the episode of the ‘Paradise’ yesterday and it is set in the late 1800s and in that too they have a negro as a scientist/ photographer that white women are enthralled with. In the end a white woman is seen kissing him. I bet in those days none of that inter racial nonsense happened.

  • Whitesneedtobebrave

    Yes, I have noticed that.

  • Jon

    I think the Western Man who wants a wife and kids should go to Eastern Europe and the South American countries that have a strong white population so to let the liberal woman die off. The only way to save society is to let Liberals die off and not marry with them but find marriage minded Eastern or south American white women.

  • spicynujac

    The correct answer was monarchy 🙂