The thrust of the essay is that White Nationalists should exploit common sense (look her dead in the eye, be confident, be funny, don’t be a nice guy, etc.) to secure mates and racialize young females. The long term goal advocated is reproductive success (sex tied to reproduction), not sexual intercourse for its own sake. Michael could have stated this more clearly and used less provocative language to get his point across.

But nowhere in his article does Michael idolize dissolute males. He does not say that men should psychologically manipulate females to “score” as many one night stands as possible. His object seems to be to coax the more cerebral White Nationalists (he cites me as an example) out of their misogyny and into the “sexual marketplace.” I don’t agree with this characterization, as I am neither celibate or a misogynist, but that’s not the issue here.

I’ve elaborated my view of the Roissysphere before. There is a lot of truth in what they have to say, so I won’t criticize their science of the pick up artist, but I think the degeneration of sexual mores that followed in the wake of feminism is one of the strongest arguments against modern liberal society. It is something the White Nationalist movement should aim to reverse. At the same time, I have also said that retreating into monastic celibacy like Lawrence Auster is hopelessly impractical.

For the most part, I agree with Michael Bell. White Nationalists have to navigate the choppy waters of gender relations in a degenerate liberal age. In pursuit of the reproductive goal, I see nothing morally objectionable about making intelligent use of basic insights into female psychology. There probably isn’t a man in the world who doesn’t do this on some level. The only real point of difference between us is the stress he puts upon game.

White Nationalists are still a tiny minority of White Americans. There are still plenty of decent, respectable young women out there in a shrinking pool of potential mates. In fact, we’re outnumbered by them. If you are willing to look hard enough, you can find a mate of this sort. You also have a better chance of forming a lasting relationship with such a woman than using game to convert the common run of brainwashed female to racialism.

Unlike some people here, I am not going to condemn the emerging men’s issues movement, as it is clear there is some common ground between us. If you think about it, White men are being dispossessed in several ways: as a race, as a religion, and as men. The men’s issues movement is another angle on the dispossession story. It involves many of the same actors. “Game” is one emergent response to this. White Nationalism and Christian Nationalism are two others.

I don’t think anyone has looked at all three movements with the same critical perspective. We should mine this subject further.

This realism comes from an unlikely source: recent online discourse about “game,” i.e., techniques for picking up women. Some white nationalists will reject all talk of “game” because of its Negro gutter slang and Jewish promoters. But in spite of its origins, I wish to argue that game is merely the reassertion of nature and Traditional wisdom about sexuality in a form adopted to the present Dark Age (Kali Yuga), and that white nationalist men need to master it if their genes and values are to survive into the next Golden Age.

In traditional societies, men rule over and take care of women. As girls, they are ruled by their fathers. As wives, they are ruled by their husbands. As widows, they are looked after by their sons. Even a woman who enjoyed some choice in the matter of mates still received her male suitors under the lawful supervision and watchful eyes of her father, who hoped to find a man of the requisite caste, ability, wealth, and physical prowess, for these factors would ensure her continuance of the family bloodline and the protection of her and her offspring.

As the West underwent decline thanks largely to the revolutionary upheavals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, women were kept in their traditional place more by social expectations than the legal rule of their male superiors. This persisted, more or less, until around the 1960s, when the Free Love counter-culture fully liberated women to do whatever they pleased. Today, all constraints have been cast to the four winds, and women roam the world acting on their own proclivities.

I am no misogynist; I am merely an observer with a knack for characterization. One thing I have noticed about women is that their minds are chaotic places, rife with insecurities, second-guessing, emotionalism, sensationalism, caprice, naivete, worries, self-contradiction, and an unhealthy preoccupation with immediate concerns.

Add to this the slew of other uniquely female maladies: premenstrual syndrome, Munchausen Biproxy, and post-partum depression, among others.

Now, throw women into a society that is the epitome of chaos, where men are effeminate, family life is turbulent (and daddy issues are nine times out of ten the cause of female self-ruination), drugs of every sort are easily accessible, and all positive values are inverted. Thus you have the potential for raw, unadulterated lunacy. These are the times we live in, and being wired as they are biologically, we almost cannot blame women for their often senseless behavior.

The senseless behavior that concerns us here is that of choosing male mates who would come across to most of us as either ugly, stupid, or downright degenerate. There are many beautiful, bright, and successful women out there who have their arms around sloppy, slack-jawed, grotesque morons of every race. We have all seen it, and we have all been equally confused, outraged, and discouraged by it, I’m sure. “How can that be possible?!” we would say to ourselves or the friend next to us. Many of us would then think “I’m good looking, successful, and can carry an intelligent conversation. Why don’t I get girls like that?”

The truth is that these evolutionary throwbacks have an advantage over the cerebral types in courting the hot chicks—an advantage that generally proves to be most decisive. Among today’s young crowd, it’s called “having game.” As the phrase is undoubtedly of urban slang origin, allow me to consult the Urban Dictionary website:

“The ability to seduce anybody of the opposite sex . . . or same sex for that matter.

10 minutes after he met her (he) was hittin’ dat ass, dat dude got mad game.”

What exactly does “the ability to seduce anybody” entail? Nowadays it requires a series of mental games that someone with street smarts is capable of playing, and playing well. The woman’s mind, again, is a complicated place. It is like a rotating sphere with a number of different buttons, each of which can be pressed only within a limited time span. If you miss a button, it loses its overall effectiveness by its next rotation.

Most importantly, one needs to determine the proper sequence in which to press these buttons, as the wrong one could result in total, perpetual rejection. Another could land one in the ever-dreaded “friend zone,” wherein a woman sees a man purely as a platonic friend and will never consider him in a romantic fashion as long as they both shall live.

The game starts the second a man speaks to a woman, and may continue indefinitely depending upon what the man is seeking; the goal nowadays is usually to get the girl in bed. The pressing of the right buttons at the right time produces an electrical shockwave in the woman’s head that tells her “This man is sexy and I want to get to know him,” even if he is not physically attractive, and even if he is, in every other regard, an asshole.

Allow me to repeat: good looks, intelligence, social stature, education, and wealth are not sufficient for scoring with women anymore. Women have such an unlimited array of choices nowadays due to their liberation that the only way to truly snag one is to get into her head and steer her in your direction. That is what having game is all about, and that is an ability that we white nationalists need to develop if our race is to have a shot at survival.

I absolutely loathe playing mind games; whenever I stoop to the level of borderline childlike idiocy that is often necessary when “spitting game,” I feel almost like a shell of my true self. But this is the Kali Yuga, and game, like most forms of dishonesty and manipulation, is necessary for us at this point in time. Think of it as behaving like an agent provocateur with a crucial objective.

Most white nationalists are extremely cerebral people, and many more still are well-kempt, handsome, masculine fellows. I have met some of the most brilliant and most noble-looking men among this crowd. But the highly intelligent mind, with its preoccupation with lofty ideas and the like, is so foreign to the mentality one needs to pick up women that many of our kind simply have trouble finding mates.

We expect that the epitome of graceful white womanhood is out there for our taking, and that the rightness of our Cause and nobility of our spirits is all we need to get her. Unfortunately, this is far from the case. As such, a streak of self-defeating misogyny has arisen among our ranks, as well as among intelligent whites who don’t subscribe to our ideals.

Here is an example from Occidental Dissent (October 25, 2009):

Young women these days have been stripped of all culture, taste, and refinement. The last traces of respectability are quickly vanishing. It is harder and harder to find a mate who is intelligent, somewhat interesting, and isn’t a whore. Increasingly, I find myself entertaining the dark thought that women are only good for one thing, which is sex. Most of my friends have already arrived at this conclusion.

Hence, this post. Young women are suckers for cads. They deliberately seek out exactly the guys who are most likely to use them, treat them like shit, and dispose of them. They all entertain the same fantasy of being able to control males of this sort; often times in full knowledge of what they are getting into.

He’s right about one thing. Women have lost culture and refinement, but it’s only because the type of  civilization that once predominated has been supplanted by the Kali Yuga (the age of chaos), which itself is the fault of past generations of men. Without the order bestowed on all Life that is only possible by the agency of Higher Man—the culture bearer—one cannot expect a naturally chaotic creature to maintain her respectability on her own.

The author is wrong when he says women “deliberately seek out exactly the guys who are most likely to use them, treat them like shit, and dispose of them. They all entertain the same fantasy of being able to control males of this sort.” You see, it is not a love of being abused that drives women into the arms of “cads,” but rather, the skillful “game” that cads employ to get them. They mistreat women later on simply because they can. Say what you will about them, but they know how to control a woman’s mind.

What makes a race truly great is its ability to evolve and adapt to continually arising problems. The state of women today is one such problem, and rather than giving into despair and bemoaning how “whorish” and “uncultured” they are—both of which only lead to sexless “blue balls”—we ought to be surmounting this dilemma.

We are smarter, nobler, and better looking than the average cad, and if you add those traits to a little bit of “game,” the odds would be overwhelmingly in our favor. Again, these traits are not enough in themselves, but they do lend support at certain points. Think of game as the battering ram needed to breach an enemy castle, and a man’s positive personality traits as the ram’s covering arrow fire.

If you refuse to develop your own game and would rather sit and complain about how low women have sunk, then our race will not have the future generation of leaders it needs to carry the torch of civilization. It requires much trial and error, but the perks of success far outweigh the cons of how silly one might feel while “gaming.”

A successful game results in sexual intercourse—which should be reinforcement enough—and, later on, loving companionship. With the latter comes the possibility of converting the woman to our Cause—“culturing” her. I can attest to this from personal experience; once a woman loves you, or at least cares for you enough, she is much more willing to embrace thoughts and ideas that were hitherto completely absent from her mind. Most women can be brought into the fold only in this way.

There is also a non-sexual incentive for mastering the art of seduction. One who knows how to manipulate women has the potential to manipulate the masses, for they are essentially passive and feminine. From getting women’s numbers, one of our own can gradually ascend to getting people’s votes in a local election or something similar. Just look at David Duke.

The Practical Side of Game

We shall now move to an examination of how game is carried out; the popular phraseology is “spitting game.” Fortunately, the Internet offers an endless array of blogs and tip-giving websites for our use. Some of these, no doubt, were written by urban Negroes and other hoodlums, but the utility of their ideas is far more important than their origins.

Firstly, one must understand that there is no single method of success. Different situations call for different approaches, be they at a bar, in a library, or at work. Game is only the first principle—the will-to-romance, if you will—and tactics are different manifestations of it.

For example, a man should never single-handedly approach a group of more than two girls for the sake of meeting one of them. For one, female gaggles tend to think that if all of them aren’t getting attention, then none of them ought to. Secondly, the man in question will simply appear strange to them. “Why is he all alone? Doesn’t he have any friends? Can’t he see that it’s a girl’s night out?” are the thoughts that will be running through their minds.

The film Big Daddy hits it right on the head when Sonny teaches Julian that “initiating the conversation is half the battle.” Such is why this is the most difficult part of gaming. The possibilities in this regard are absolutely coterminous with the context, which means that one cannot give a solid answer as to “how.” I can, however, give a few examples of situation manipulation.

I was once at a restaurant that had a bar right next to my table. Sitting there was a tall, slender blonde with blue eyes whom I resolved to meet. As it just so happened, this place was a microbrewery with its own unique assortment of beers, one of which was titled “The Blonde Bombshell.” I strategically walked up to the bar in a spot next to the woman and placed my order with enough volume for her to hear it. Surely enough, like clockwork, she responded.

“A fan of the blondes, eh?” she inquired with a come-hither look in her eye. “Guilty,” I responded with a smirk while slowly shaking my head. A longer conversation then spilled out naturally, I got her number, and the rest was fait accompli.

It’s really just about sizing up the situation in a Sun-Tzu fashion. If a girl looks like she’s in a pissy mood, don’t waste your time. If she appears to be totally absorbed in her cell phone, she’s likely talking to one or more other guys already (and she’s also probably high-maintenance). If several men have been approaching a woman that night, you will just appear to be a dorky cliché to her if you follow suit. Sometimes you will even get lucky and a girl will approach you, making the game outlandishly easy.

After initial communication occurs, the button-pressing begins. Below are some core methods to stick to provided by becomeaplayer.com, with my additional commentary.

SMILE. Remember to smile constantly; while you’re talking, while you’re listening, while you’re doing just about anything. I can not stress this rule enough, smiling is the most powerful weapon in any player’s arsenal. It let’s the women know that your probably a fun guy to be around and someone they would like to know or be involved with.  This single rule alone can improve your success with women by over 100%, use it wisely . . .

Subliminally, smiling communicates self-confidence and superiority, for we only smile and laugh at things to which we feel superior. Make sure you look her dead in the eye as well. Looking away suggests insecurity, which will destroy your chances immediately.

Never talk too much or bring up subjects that will be boring to her; let her initiate the topics of discussion and do most of the talking while you simply relate yourself to her statements by saying things like “me too.”

The second one is extremely important. Do not discuss politics or give any inkling as to your racial views. Keep the conversation simple and try to keep her talking about herself. The indoctrination process can begin several months later, after you’ve already had sex with her and she’s eating out of your hand.

Tell her a joke, because jokes stick in your head.

By this, the author is not talking about going up to a girl and saying “So, did you hear the one about the bear and the rabbit?” Instead, be sarcastic in your speech. Make fun of her playfully if she slips up with a word, says something that doesn’t make sense (which they are prone to do), or does something else unusual. They are insecure beings, and if a man demonstrates that he is above them, they eat it right up.

My sardonic ways of conversing have almost always been my means to success. I recall one date I had with a beautiful, busty woman who had a funny voice, recited odd inside jokes that I could not possibly understand, and had a bit of snot in one of her nostrils. I tore her apart playfully for each quirk, making her extremely self-conscious but nonetheless enamored. If she were a male friend there would have been a brawl, but women love being picked on for some reason. One year later we concluded a long, passionate, rewarding relationship that I’ll never forget; I even made her racially conscious.

Another tip, which is somewhat intertwined with the above, reads:

Always compliment women, and they will always feel good about you, but don’t overdue [sic] it or they will think your [sic] just trying to score points (which you are, but you don’t want them to know that). Try to sound sincere and give her a unique compliment that most people will overlook. Once you’ve gotten comfortable with complimenting women in general, the next step is to begin giving them negative compliments (negs) in order to disqualify yourself as someone that is trying to pick them up. By doing this, you will have a non-threatening presence from then on and will be able to game her from a much more powerful position. The basic form of a neg is a positive followed by a negative, for example “I like the color of your shirt, but it fits a little funny on you . . . is it too small?”

There is an important dynamic to compliment-giving that the writer overlooks a bit. Firstly, never be too direct in your compliments during the first conversation with a girl. If you say, for example, “You are damn beautiful tonight,” she is likely going to think that you are odd, or even creepy. Save those remarks for a third or fourth date. Even the Baron Julius Evola offers some advice in this regard:

“. . . she is like a flame feeding itself . . . she loves even more as the object of her love does not commit himself, does not open himself up, and even creates some distance. . .”

In other words, she does not need endless compliments. The man who keeps dishing them out appears too eager—almost feminine in his own right. Offer a compliment only if she brings up a target, such as: “Yea my hair is a rat’s nest today,” upon which you say “You’re crazy. It looks fine.” Or better yet, leave a “neg.”: “Yea it is, in fact, I see some things crawling around in there.” After such a neg, smile and let her know you’re messing around. If she’s sitting or standing next to you, you might also give her a light shove with your elbow while reassuring her. If she playfully slaps you, touches your leg, or says “Screw you!” while giggling (do I really need to provide a translation here?), you are in like Flynn.

Finally, when the conversation is all said and done, do not ask for her number—demand it. Instead of “So, can I have your number?” it ought to be “I’m thinking you should give me your number so we can hang out some time.” This evokes your masculine auctoritas, your lordliness.

Nine times out of ten, you will not sleep with the girl that night. The game must therefore go on for a few more weeks. Evola offers more advice:

“. . . the feminine principle, whose force is centrifugal, does not turn to fleeting objects but rather to a ‘virile’ stability in which she finds a limit to her ‘restlessness.’”

In other words, you must be as a sun to her planet. Calling or texting the next day is a sure-fire way to kill your chances, as this suggests over-eagerness. Most of the time the girl will call or text you anyhow. If this does not happen, wait two whole days before initiating contact. After hanging out becomes a routine, never come across as “needing” to see her. The idea is to appear as a Stoic, unmoved mover that could not care any less about her; they see it as an enticing challenge, and it works every time.

My worst failures occurred when I was calling almost every other day, always being the one to request a hangout. I was being a “nice guy”—the worst mistake any man can make. The Hollywood image of the reserved, shy, apologetic, nice pipsqueak, usually played by some Jewish actor, does NOT get the girl. Don’t be Jon Cusack or Jason Biggs, but Jason Statham or Colin Farrell (but don’t smoke like the latter!).

Some words regarding text messaging: Women love to do it, and although I absolutely loathe it, it’s yet another arena in which we must be masters. Texts should never be very long, and one should never send two in a row. Let the women keep hammering you with the questions. Respond with simple, basic answers that prompt more questions, and always give about five to ten minutes before responding. If she does not respond, be patient even if it means waiting three hours. In his novel Mister, Alex Kurtagic offers similar guidelines in the scene describing how the main character met his wife.

* * *

The “button-pressing” ideas given above should be considered a basic framework for spitting game, not an absolute equation. Each situation and each woman may call for something different. A girl with daddy issues is more likely to respond to crudely humorous remarks, while a girl from a healthy household might demand more intelligent manners of expression. A woman who’s had a few at the bar might have a better sense of humor than a woman in a bookstore who is sober.

On the other hand, a guy who is physically attractive will have better chances (covering fire) and could probably get away with a few slipups (incorrect button sequences), while a chubby guy will need to have his game down to a T to succeed. It’s all variable, but one becomes more capable in sizing up situations with practice and a little advice.

I have a friend who has slept with well over forty women. He is not particularly handsome, standing 5’7” with a beer-gut, tiny balloon-like hands, and a goat-like beard; to bust his chops, I call him “The Hobbit.” Nevertheless, he has one of the most flawless games I have ever witnessed and has landed countless gorgeous ladies as a result.

Not only does he know what to say and when to say it, but he also has an uncanny ability to determine what types of women he’s dealing with. If a girl comes across as having a high level of self-respect and intelligence, he generally avoids her. If a girl appears to be less-than-bright with insecurities and daddy issues, he pounces like a lion upon a gazelle—“Easy targets,” he calls them. His current woman was initially won over when he wrote her a note that said “I want to *** you like it’s the last supper.” He read her signals, knew what she would respond to, and dished it out with surgeon-like precision.

One important thing to note is that some women will not respond to you no matter how well your game is. A small minority of women have specific types of men that they prefer, i.e., guidos, gangstahs, blondes, brunettes with blue eyes, bodybuilders, etc., and will never deviate from these preferences. Often times women will only date members of a certain race, be it their own or another (the latter is unfortunate). I’ve gleaned from my experiences that the greater majority will respond to men who appear to be of their own race or something akin to it, and who have good game, regardless of sub-categorical types. As white men, that means we have a big pool to fish in.

Instead of dismissing game as something plebeian or that only works on dumb “whores,” we need to be open-minded and give it a shot. Intelligent white men, especially those of our creed, need to master the art of seduction. It is a Dionysian impulse that must be cultivated if we are to keep up with the nonwhite hordes that multiply indiscriminately every day, sometimes out of unions with our own men and women.

To those men who think me a braggart, I suggest you go to a bar or other public venue and give gaming a shot. If you already have a girlfriend or wife then you only substantiate my argument because it took a good game on your part to snag her! If you refuse to try it and would rather sit around in a misogynistic despair, then there is no hope for you or the generations of white posterity that you could have sired.

To those women who deem me a sexist, I suggest you search your souls a bit more deeply; look back on your ex-boyfriends and past one-night stands and reassess exactly what you were attracted to about them. If you find yourself saying “he appeared very confident” or “he was really funny,” then you only prove my argument—you’re talking about his good gaming skills.

Women have become merely another battlefield on which we white men must prove victorious if we are to save the race. Rise to the challenge that is the busty, smooth-skinned, broad-hipped, doe-eyed, sleek-figured white vixen!

We are better in every way than the meatheads, whiggers, metrosexuals, gangstahs, Asian sensations, guidos, potheads, and other goofballs out there who land beautiful women; those women could easily be ours.

We cannot allow ourselves to be outdone by slack-jawed, lazy-grinned, physically disproportionate, genetically-debased material simply because they have the courage to “hollah’ at” girls while we keep to ourselves and bewail the dating pool.

Yes, girls are wired crazily, and they often times act stupidly, but it is our job to be their source of mountain-like centrality. We must conquer them, bring them into our orbits, and turn them into the proud mothers of our future through our irresistible auctoritas.

Their whoreishness, erratic behavior, uncertainty, irrationality, insecurity, and the like ought to be seen as exploitable weaknesses, not impregnable fortifications.

Get out there and spit some game, white man! It will take many tries if you’re new to it, but that’s how one learns. Don’t feel self-conscious, and don’t get discouraged; heed the words of Nietzsche: “Be of good cheer! What matter! Learn to laugh at yourselves!”

And for God’s sake, get laid.

Good Hair is Chris Rock’s exploration of the remarkably complex, controversial, costly, time-consuming, and even toxic world of Black female haircare. While Imus was fired and subjected to a Two Minutes Hate for casually referring to some college basketball players as “nappy-headed hos,” Chris Rock has extended the same point into a two hour documentary which gets featured on HBO, gets shown at film festivals, and achieves critical acclaim.

As it should have.

It was an honest and balanced documentary that was done by a Black father whose young daughter asked him “Daddy, how come I don’t have good hair?” He focused on it as a community issue, refraining from the histrionic whining about Whites imposing European standards of beauty on them. He didn’t even mention the notorious “doll tests” from Brown v. The Board of Education case. I was waiting for it, and it never came. Maybe he wasn’t aware of it. But I think he deliberately intended to keep the focus where it belongs: on what his tribe is thinking and doing.

Readers of this blog should be warned that Al Sharpton is featured multiple times in the documentary, but they’ll find him in a different mode than they’re probably accustomed to seeing him. Frankly, I admire Al Sharpton and wish we had more men in our own community as committed to speaking up for us as he is for them. He’s admittedly too quick to cast blame on Whitey, but an advocate who’s a bit too protective is preferable to an advocate like Bill Cosby who spends his time scolding his community for failing to integrate and deracinate. This is where Chris Rock strikes a nice balance, wholeheartedly embracing his race and culture while frankly analyzing how it should cope with its challenges.

But the analysis ultimately falls short. It fails to honestly explore WHY Black women struggle so mightily to look White. Both Sharpton and Rock leave the lay viewer with the impression that Black women are merely being vain or stupid and should cut it out. As simple as that explanation is, there’s a darker reason, an uncomfortable one that casts their monomaniacal pursuit of “good hair” in an entirely different light.

Half of the reason is biological. As a group, Black women are objectively less attractive than White women. White women are literally loaded with deceptive indicators of youthfulness: light hair, light skin, light eyes, and big foreheads. The politically incorrect (and hurtful) truth behind the notorious “doll test” is that the preference for the lighter dolls is culturally universal. Toddlers instinctively find White dolls to be more aesthetically pleasing. Pornographic cartoonists in Japan, driven by a very competitive profit motive to produce the most attractive females possible, draw caricatures of youthful Caucasian girls (with admittedly smaller frames, chins, and noses than our norm).

But this biological issue wouldn’t be that such an issue if it weren’t for the sociological issues: Black imprisonment and interracial relationships. The bottom decile of potential suitors are incarcerated by the government. W. E. B. DuBois’ talented tenth are chasing blonde women. The product of these variables is a high-stakes competition between Black women over the relatively few Black males who are willing and able to court them. The relative importance that men in general and Black men in particular place on attractiveness pits them in a sexually selective race condition between one another to look as objectively beautiful as possible.

Telling the Black women with a weave who’s unable to pay her rent to change her priorities is akin to telling a cheetah that’s dying of exhaustion that it ought to slow down and catch easier prey. It betrays a fundamental ignorance of the bigger picture, won’t solve the problem, and blames the victim. If Chris Rock is serious about making the world a better place for his adorable daughters, he’ll need to step out of the barbershop and onto the golf course.

From Occidental Dissent, December 17, 2009

First it would be helpful to examine the nature of sexuality itself, particularly male sexuality. I think it best approached by analogy to electricity. All of the wonderful electronic wonders of our age are driven by a very simply physical law: the insatiable desire for electrons to move from a cathode to an anode. They always choose the path of least resistance, and electrical engineers exploit this physical property of matter to produce everything from a basic ceiling fan to the computer I’m using to type this article.

It is undeniable that the Caucasian male sex drive is the engine of history. The genius of white men is a result of testosterone’s drive-enabling mental state combined with a reasonably high average population IQ and a higher capacity to produce geniuses through greater population variability. It could be that white males occupy a genetic “sweet spot” of reasonably high testosterone (as compared with Asian males) and reasonably high IQ, and this golden balance is what gives Western societies their advantage over Eastern civilizations, despite the latter’s higher average IQ. We have both the capacity and the drive to achieve great things.

One must wonder, then, what would happen to a society (and this affects all societies, not just Western ones), where men can have sexual gratification of the most graphic sort on-demand, continuously, effortlessly. Compare this to the numerous accounts of the medieval period of unconsummated love between a married lady and a knight, relationships more than Platonic but less than overtly romantic, and the great deeds such ladies inspired in gallant knights. Like an iPhone, the flow of current (i.e. sexual gratification) in such a relationship is strictly economized to optimize the real objective of the whole enterprise: the accomplishment of great deeds.

Historical Western limitations concerning sex are practically more of a testament to the power of sex than any sort of prudishness. As Solomon said (Proverbs 6:27), if a man takes fire into his bosom, can he expect his clothes to not be burned?

What would happen if I disassembled my iPhone and connected a small copper wire from the anode of the battery to the cathode? The current would choose that least path of resistance and all of the good produced by its journey by more tortuous paths would be lost. To what extent is the temptation of on-demand unlimited pornography, which is the situation every Internet-connected male is in, sapping the energy needed to grow families and push further into the technological frontier?

As a adherent of human microevolution, I know that incentives matter, and sexual incentives particularly so. Some creatures survive, and a subset of those reproduce. Sex is the signaling system that is supposed to reward procreation, and it is because of procreation’s singular evolutionary importance that the sexual signaling system is so powerful and pleasurable. It also implies that any twisting of wires in this system is going to have huge negative implications.

Pornography provides a payoff of sexual pleasure with nothing accomplished. There is no procreation, no love or devotion between husband and wife prerequisite for the healthy psychological development of children.

Pornography, through infinite variety, can even offer greater pleasure than monogamous sex, hitting the rewind button on our evolutionary development.

White men sit at a precipice evolutionarily. We are capable of the high-investment parenting (i.e. monogamy) necessary to sustain our civilizations, but still feel the pull of our lower evolutionary forebears. We are neither here nor there, and this tension between r and K strategies is omnipresent. To resist the dark forces of r was hard enough in our traditional medieval villages, where temptation was tempered by the threat of social ostracism for non-conformance, a sort of self-enforcing social contract that kept the village on the straight and narrow K path. Now the r haunts our every waking, solitary moment, always tempting with genetic specimens caricatured by technology to exploit our sexual preferences beyond the norm of real life. Pornography offers infinite variety, a key pleasure payoff for r strategies. This “variety” is of a much different sort than the medieval village. Let me explain.

Porn is an industry uniquely suited to the strengths of Jews. For its efficient production, it requires a level of exploitation and cruelty to women that most white males (in sufficient quantities to dominate a given industry) simply lack. It takes a cruel, Middle Eastern, woman-hating religion and culture to produce the stuff. This Jewish dominance leads to other consequences.

A friend of mine once pointed out that the degeneracy of Broadway plays and musicals, now almost obsessed with various sexual perversions and paraphilias (particularly homosexuality), cannot be attributed merely to a primarily homosexual market, a mere 10% at most of the Jewish population. He pointed out that the main market for Broadway productions actually consists of heterosexual Jews, and in this we see a key difference between Jews and non-Jews. Many Jewish heterosexual men enjoy watching homosexuals, transvestites, and other assorted freaks prance around a stage singing and dancing in mock irony. That which disgusts heterosexual European men entertains Jewish men.

So the variety which the porn market demands will inevitably be a Jewish variety. Some anti-pornography crusaders have claimed that the process of orgasm, with its intense chemical payload in the brain, causes a permanent imprinting of the sexual stimulus into the brain. If this is true, droves of Western men are having their minds imprinted with sexual stimuli produced from Jewish sexual deviancy.

The infinite appetite of the r strategy thus fed, it is easy for the K strategy to be discarded. From the reptilian brain’s point of view, sex is frequent and with high quality partners. Why bother with trying to please a wife, a real woman with stretch marks, needs, opinions and perhaps a little cellulite?

Sadly, not even the fantasy partners are as they appear. The advent of voice shifting technology (hardware where “talent” with other “assets” other than world-class singing ability — think Britney Spears — can be made to sound perfectly on pitch) has revolutionized pop music. Similarly, new filters and algorithms in video processing are coming online to make human bodies appear firmer, smooth and more “alive” and desirable than real life.

But what of the K strategy? Simply put, few men will now pursue it successfully, compromised internally by r temptations through pornography and externally through a hostile, feminist society and legal environment, as our own F. Roger Devlin has demonstrated. Part of pornography’s psychological appeal is its provision to males of a fantasy woman interested in selflessly providing sexual pleasure.

Feminism, and I think Devlin would agree, as one of its effects has caused women to become more self-focused sexually and has probably resulted in fewer normal sexually satisfying relationships between men and women. This contrast between the willing women of porn and the often cold and cruel behavior of the top 75% of women spurning the lower 75% of men in the modern sexual dystopia makes pornography all the more desirable to the average man. Men with their r-bias take it too far the other way into the unachievable sexual fantasies of pornography, but nevertheless there exists a population of men out there who would be more satisfied with a flesh-and-blood wife if she were not out whoring herself to the nearest alpha male.

All of this paints a dark picture, and it gets darker still. One might imagine that an obese, porn-addicted white male might at times reflect on his reality and become a little discouraged, perhaps enough to inspire him to a sort of Stoicism to make life the best it can be among the ruins. Yet with another click of the mouse he can enter the self-referential world of video games, and receive yet another set of false fitness signals to quell his discontent.

In the next installment we will cover this and my thoughts on how to live a life resisting these temptations in the late, great dystopic American empire.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Drunken Silenus, c. 1618 (Alte Pinakothek, Munich)

As a tentative evolutionist, I must acknowledge limitations for human progress due to certain unchanging characteristics of men. Contrary to the blank-slate theoreticians of the post-Enlightenment, man is not a fundamentally rational or good creature.

Evolutionists of the racialist stripe, however, sometimes indulge in their own wishful thinking, grasping at Nietzschean straws about “supermen” seeking their own evolutionary destiny. This is but the Enlightenment error with a naturalistic veneer. No creature, including man, is truly naturally rational in the sense of pursuing fitness directly, but rather relies on a set of signals that merely represent fitness. While these signals may have been more-or-less reliable in the original environment for which they were designed, they have become increasingly dysgenic in the contemporary world.

As a Christian and a Calvinist, I see man as a fallen creature who, short of the supernatural, will degrade himself progressively with animalistic urges even unto death. Without the threat of supernatural accountability, men will, given the opportunity, seek to gratify their appetites for these false signals even if they are rationally aware that these are paths to destruction, not fitness. Even with a belief in supernatural accountability, men will still struggle their entire lives to combat false signals from their lower brains with explicit pursuit of fitness from their neocortex.

In this series I will explore three of these false signals: fast food (or more generally, the obesity epidemic), pornography, and video games. The evolutionary cul-de-sac before us is represented by a 20 to 40-something male in our society who consumes Taco Bell for nutrition, Internet porn for sex, and seeks fulfillment through the simulated accomplishments of video games.

Fair disclosure: I am agnostic about claims of human origins, finding both theistic evolution and intelligent design to be compelling but mutually contradictory arguments. Thus, like many evolutionists, I will use terms like “designed” and “evolved” interchangeably but any particular use of these words should not be an interpretation of my yet still unformed opinion on these matters. I will also note that either of these beliefs is compatible with race realism. Race realism is such a blindingly obvious fact (for those sufficiently rational to overcome the peer pressure against it) that it is akin to acknowledging that birds have feathers, which they obviously do whether evolved or designed.

Fast Food and Obesity

Man finds foods attractive on a sliding scale more-or-less correlating with calorie density. The reason for this is not hard to grasp: in times of scarcity, a healthy appetite for calorie-dense foods, when they were available, would result in an individual more likely to build up fat deposits in the good times in preparation for the bad. For primal man the name of the game was caloric intake for survival.

Thanks to Western science, food is now plentiful beyond the wildest hopes of our ancestors. Our most serious nutritional problem is now obesity, as the Darwinian free market provides a cornucopia of choices perfectly matched to our primal instincts. Outlets such as Burger King and Taco Bell offer plentiful meat, cheese, starches and sauces to satisfy our desires for high-density, high-variety food. These companies spend millions on research and development to determine which combinations of flavors will most stimulate our senses of smell and taste.

Yet there is a twist in our design. Implanted deep inside each of us is an innate idea of the ideal of the human form. This ideal, for some reason, is not that of the obese which is of necessity the consequence of human desire matched with unlimited food. However, this does not seem to make much sense. If these desires evolved in a time of scarcity, why wouldn’t more of a good thing (fat deposits) be itself a good and attractive thing to our sexual natures? I am happy to accept it as it is, but I’m sure evolutionists have a clever explanation.

My guess: the opportunities in our primal world for obesity would be non-existent, even if theoretically such a state might offer additional marginal fitness, though at some extreme the acute effect on health and mobility would quickly supersede any benefit from increased stored calories. However, if human microevolution has indeed accelerated over the last 10,000 years (as theorized in the groundbreaking new book The 10,000 Year Revolution), one would expect obesity in early civilization to be associated with status, and status to be associated with sexual attraction.

Since older, fatter men would tend to have higher status in early civilizations, you might expect women to have developed some tolerance for such a male phenotype. Indeed, this is what we see in human nature, where women are generally less concerned with the physical attractiveness of a male IF the male is high status.

Men, on the other hand, tend to care only about physical attractiveness (and to some extent, personality, another ornamental feature of a well-developed mind and good genetics) and not so much about the status of a woman. This is probably because for most of our recent evolutionary history women have had comparably little opportunity nor any natural proclivity to acquire status through property and wealth, rather relying on their charms, both physical and otherwise, as their primary marketable characteristics in the sexual marketplace.

Another obvious biological problem with modern obesity and attractiveness is that our lower brains, at some level, must be coded with some template of what is and is not “human” in body shape. The extremes of modern obesity may prevent individuals from finding each other attractive because of this circuitry.

Feminists have their own sexist beef with this idea of an embedded ideal body form for attractiveness hard-coded into human DNA; in short, our women’s studies’ professors want to eat Twinkies and emasculate men, but resent the idea that men might find them less attractive for doing so.

The essence of feminism, of course, is that men are responsible for women’s happiness, whatever that might entail at a given moment. So we get demands for equal pay, but also demands for paid maternity leave. They want the freedom to behave immorally sexually, but also dislike the idea of pornography (i.e., imposing a standard of morality on men but not themselves).

The journalist Steve Sailer has coined his own “Law of Female Journalism,” which too is eerily predictive: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

So it is with feminists who dominate the “fat acceptance” movement who explicitly challenge the idea of men being naturally attracted to a certain body shape. Like other tabula rasa adherents, they blame “culture” for propagandizing men to prefer highly fertile 19-year-olds over hirsute, obese 40-something female sociology professors. Among their claims is that in ancient civilizations men preferred larger women.

Certain Roman ruins to call into question this assumption, but there may be a nugget of truth to it, to a certain well-defined limit. Some have identified a trend in the popular culture towards promoting thinner and thinner ideals of female beauty. Marilyn Monroe, for example, wore a size 8 dress for most of her career. In today’s Hollywood she would be considered a bit on the heavy side. Another study by Wired Magazine documented the decreasing Body Mass Index of Playboy centerfolds over the last 40+ years.

Hypotheses for this trend are widely varied, including A) men really do naturally prefer thinner women (thinness being a proxy for youth) and this trend reflects businesses serving their market, B) homosexual designers in the fashion industry prefer thinner women to better showcase their clothing, and this combined with the cultural phenomenon of the supermodel, served to distort ideals of beauty, which are somewhat socially influenced and flexible or C) the increasing obesity of the American population makes thinness even more relatively attractive as it becomes a highly desired, hard-to-attain and largely fake-resistant public indication of fitness.

Nevertheless, Homo sapiens finds himself in an interesting position in the early 21st century. His acquired habits make it extremely hard for him to resist plentiful, tasty food to excess while the demands of his sedentary lifestyle make it more likely he will permanently retain these fat reserves. These excess fat reserves, society-wide, not only result in increased mortality but also make him both less attractive to and less attracted to the opposite sex.

On top of this, the mass media constantly push impossible images of beauty, showcasing the idealized, airbrushed forms of the top 1% of the population. Every now and then the supermarket tabloids will feature candid beach or vacation photos of these airbrushed celebrities, and the difference between their projected, airbrushed media image and their appearance in real life is striking. Not even the “beautiful people” meet the standard of beauty in the age of Photoshop.

How might man escape this sexual dystopia? We will explore the escape of pornography in the next installment of this series.

Read Part 2 here.

The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature

Darwinian evolution is seen as a cold, ruthless struggle for survival that shaped what we eventually became.  But, the critic responds, whence kindness, humor, language, playfulness, art and creativity?  Scientists have tried to explain altruism towards relatives as kin selection and other forms of morality as based on reciprocity, but we all often help people who are not related to us when there’s nothing to be gained.  Geoffrey Miller invokes sexual selection to fill the holes in human nature left unexplained by natural selection.

Reproduction Is as Important as Survival

In The Origin of Species Darwin devoted three pages to sexual selection.  In his second most famous book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex published twelve years later he devoted over 550 out of 900 pages to the idea.  What the scientist understood, and what those who followed him over the next century forgot, was that there were two main forces at work in evolution.  An organism needs to survive and reproduce.  A scrooge that stored up resources and survived just fine but had no interest in socializing with others or finding a mate might as well have died in infancy.  The herd could be culled through natural selection, the inability to survive in the environment, or through sexual selection, the inability to find a mate.  As long as our species is not strictly monogamous, and the vast majority of the time it hasn’t been, choice in romantic matters has helped shape evolution.

Before coming up with the theory, Darwin was confused by how wasteful nature tended to be.  He once told his son Francis that “The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”  Why should such a thing evolve?  The peacock’s tail is by no means unique.  Across the animal kingdom, males seem to display ornaments that contribute nothing to or even take away from survival.  Some, like the male peacock’s tale, are connected to the body while others are an extended phenotype, something an animal creates.  During mating season, male bowerbirds of Australia and New Guinea spend almost every waking hour building elaborate nests.

Males of most species (of bowerbirds) decorate their bowers with mosses, ferns, orchids, snail shells, berries and bark.  They fly around searching for the most brilliantly colored natural objects, bring them back to their bowers, and arrange them in careful clusters of uniform color.  When the orchids and berries lose their color, the males replace them with fresh material.  Males often try to steal ornaments, especially blue feathers, from the bowers of other males.  They also try to destroy the bowers of rivals.  The strength to defend their delicate work is a precondition of their artistry.  Females appear to favor bowers that are sturdy, symmetrical, and well-ornamented with color.

The genetic ability to grow elaborate physical characteristics or drive to create art are usually found in the sex that competes for mates, i.e., males.  Miller hypothesizes that the human brain itself evolved to impress potential partners.  Not only did it help to deal with practical problems of survival, but a good sense of humor and the ability to make interesting conversation were themselves fitness indicators.  The brain, like the peacock’s tale, couldn’t grow and function properly in a diseased organism.  Thus, a healthy and complicated organ shows that an animal is relatively free of harmful mutations.

So why aren’t males significantly more intelligent than females?  Usually when a trait is sexually selected, in this case intelligence, nature ends up with a huge gender gap.  Part of the answer is that women needed to be able to detect mental fitness in males.  A woman would need to be intelligent enough to know when a male was using big words correctly or making logically consistent arguments.  Miller writes:

According to the widely used WAIS-R intelligence test, for example, English-speaking adult with an IQ of 80 typically know the words “fabric,” “enormous,” and “conceal,” but not the words “sentence,” “consume,” or “commerce.”  IQ 90 speakers typically know “sentence,” “consume,” and “commerce,” but not “designate,” “ponder,” or “reluctant.”  If you are flirting with someone, and they say they would like to “consume” your body in a passionate embrace, but they do not understand when you say you are “reluctant,” you can probably infer they have an IQ between 80 and 90.  We make these sorts of inferences quite automatically and unconsciously, of course.

Where we do see large gender differences is in ambition.  While women have evolved to appreciate art, in all cultures it’s men who mostly create it.

Another check that has kept men from becoming too much smarter than women has been monogamy.  The more polygamy there is in a species, the greater the gender dimorphism (sex differences).  In the polygamous gorillas for example, males are twice as heavy as females.  Humans are moderately dimorphic.  While men are less picky than women about their flings, when it comes to long term commitment the sexes are equally choosy.    Since males were to a certain extent selecting females too, the latter’s mind also evolved to be a fitness indicator.

Taking sexual selection into account explains all other kinds of seemingly inexplicable phenomena.  The average English speaker knows 60,000 words, but only 4,000 account for 98% of all conversation.  Basic English was created in the 1920s with only 850 words and is sufficient to express everything we can in natural English (albeit less efficiently).  So why do we know so many words?  So that friends and mates may be impressed when we use “azure” instead of blue.  As an African-American subject told a linguist,

Yo’ rap is your thing . . . like your personality.  Like you kin style on some dude by rappin’ better ‘n he do.   Show ‘im up.  Outdo him conversation-wise.  Or you can rap to a young lady, you tryin’ to impress her, catch her action-you know-get wid her sex-wise.

Language may have evolved to its complexity as a fitness indicator.  Prepubescent boys communicate just fine in grunts for all practical purposes.  Once language evolved, those who were more intelligent would’ve had more interesting things to say and introspection would’ve been selected for.

Ideals and Morality

Miller believes that, like art, the things we develop called morality, political philosophy, ideals and religion evolved through sexual selection.  As he points out, 99.9% of animal communication has nothing to do with truth content.  Among the few counterexamples are some chimp calls, bee dances, and (sometimes) human language.  Most communication exists solely to indicate fitness, like a frog’s mating call or the bowerbird’s nest.

Communicating truth can sometimes give us an advantage in terms of survival, but not in the competition for sexual success.  Imagine two cavemen getting into an argument about the purpose of the universe.

The hominid names Carl proposes: “We are mortal, fallible primates who survive on this fickly savanna only because we cluster in jealousy-ridden groups.  Everywhere we have ever traveled is just a tiny, random corner of a vast continent on an unimaginably huge sphere spinning in a vacuum.  The sphere has traveled billions and billions of times around a flaming ball of gas, which will eventually blow up to incinerate our empty, fossilized skulls.  I have discovered several compelling lines of evidence in support of these hypotheses . . .”

The hominid named Candide interrupts: “No, I believe we are immortal spirits gifted with these beautiful bodies because the great god Wug chose us as his favorite creatures.  Wug blessed us with this fertile paradise . . . Above the azure dome of the sky the smiling sun warms our hearts.  After we grow old . . . Wug will lift us from our bodies to join our friends to eat roasted gazelle and dance eternally.  I know these things because Wug picked me to receive this special wisdom in a dream last night.”

Which ideology do you suppose would prove more sexually attractive?

Muhammad and Brigham Young left behind more descendants than any scientist ever did.  We are a species that evolved to care about status, not truth.

People generally do things perceived as moral so people will have a positive opinion of them.  Not only is kindness attractive in a mate, but we can see how the evolution of ethics has worked by invoking the handicap principle.  In addition to the peacock’s tail being visually appealing, it makes surviving more difficult.  The male bird is saying “Not only does this nice tail show that I am mutation free, but I’ve been able to avoid predators will carrying this ridiculous thing around.”

The Israeli biologists Amotz and Avishag Zahavi in their book The Handicap Principle talk about a group of birds known as the Arabian babblers.  This species engages in competition to see who can be the most altruistic.  Dominant babblers won’t allow subordinate ones to take the risk of making the alarm call when a predator approaches.  The birds will try to shove food down the throats of non-relatives.  The Zahavis argue that the birds show their fitness by handicapping themselves.  Whether the disadvantage that the animal is trying to prove its fitness with is a physical appendage or an act, the principle is the same.

Excessive altruism in humans can work like this.  “I am so fit that I can afford to give millions to charity (or not worry about affirmative action helping those poor blacks, or whatever) and do it gladly.”   Ted Turner revealed that when he donated a billion dollars to the UN his wife Jane Fonda broke down and cried.  Aid organizations know that they can set off an arms race for donations by attracting a few rich donors.  Next time you see Angelina Jolie with her multiracial brood, you’ll understand why.

Those of us who rally against PC understand the frivolity of the beliefs of most people.  As Miller puts, it:

When individuals espouse ideological positions, we typically interpret their beliefs as signs of good or bad moral character. . . . Political correctness is one outcome of such attributions.  For example, if a scientist says, “I have evidence that human intelligence is genetically heritable,” that is usually misinterpreted as proclaiming, “I am a disagreeable psychopath unworthy of love.”  The arbiters of ideological correctness can create the impression that belief A must indicate personality trait X.  If X is considered sexually and socially repulsive, then belief A becomes taboo.  In this way our sexually selected instincts for moralistic self-advertisement become subverted into ideological dogmas.

He then adds that “I think that human rationality consists largely of separating intellectual arguments from personality attributions about moral character.”  Miller must understand that he’s a Darwinian rarity.

Sexual selection doesn’t care if what it favors is a good long term strategy.  The Irish elk evolved antlers so big that other functions of life, such as maybe reproduction, became impossible.  Any human population that adopts a maladaptive morality will move in a similar direction.

Evolutionary Psychology and Human Nature

The Mating Mind presents a much more colorful and interesting picture of evolution than what we’re used.  Our appreciation of music, art and oratory are just as natural and purposeful as our enjoyment of food and sex.  Miller hopes that Darwinism and evolutionary psychology will replace Freudianism, Marxism, and culturalism as the center of the humanities.  Truth will always remain as intellectual fads come and go.  If and when it does triumph in the human science, Geoffrey Miller’s theory of brain evolution may very well be a central part of the explanation of who we are.

Taking Sex Differences Seriously

John Adams once famously wrote to his wife that he studied politics and war so his children could study mathematics and philosophy and his grandchildren poetry and music.  Only a man of the Enlightenment could be so naive.  More than two hundred years later some students do study mathematics and music.  But it would’ve probably never crossed Adams’ mind in a thousand years that yet others would be studying “gender.”

Political scientist Steven Rhoads’ Taking Sex Differences Seriously is one of those books that is as interesting as its necessity is depressing.  Nothing that is written here — men are more interested in sports than women, women prefer status in men, females are better suited to care for children, etc. — would have been controversial in Adams’ day or amongst any band of hunter-gatherers.  But here we are in 2009, explaining that girls are not boys.  The Enlightenment philosophers’ mistake was projecting their belief in reason onto the rest of humanity.

From the First Day

One-day-old female infants have a stronger response to hearing a human in distress than their male counterparts.  Three days after birth, the stronger female interest in people is present.  Girls will maintain eye contact with a silent adult twice as long as boys do.  If the adult talks, girls but not boys will look longer.  Week-old baby girls but not boys can distinguish between an infant’s cry and other noises.  Only females are able to separate photographs of people they know from those they don’t by the age of four months.  Infants separate by sex very early.  One-year-olds prefer to play with their own kind and when watching a movie of babies will look at the members of their own sex more than the other.

If the above paragraph alone isn’t enough to kill the socialization hypothesis, we can look at real life examples of attempts to thwart Mother Nature.  In 1966, a circumcision gone wrong left one male identical twin without a penis.  Psychologist Dr. John Money of John Hopkins University persuaded the parents to raise the child as a female.  Surgeons completely castrated him and built what looked like a female vagina.  “Brenda” was from that point on treated like a girl.  She was given female steroids that would “facilitate and mimic female pubertal growth and feminization.”  When Brenda was 12, he/she was reported to be doing fine.  Time magazine ran a long piece on the story and the 1979 Textbook of Sexual Medicine claimed that Brenda’s “remarkably feminine” development proved the “plasticity of human gender identity.”  What’s missed here is that even if Brenda’s story was true, a lot more than socialization was going on.  Female hormones were injected and removal of the testicles ensured that some male hormones wouldn’t be produced.

But chemical tinkering and socialization together weren’t enough to make a boy into a girl.  Researchers eventually showed that Dr. Money was a fraud (whether he was embarrassed over the pain he caused or simply a maniac who liked seeing children mutilated and tortured we don’t know).  By the 1990s, Brenda had become David and was working in a slaughterhouse.  At the age of 14 he decided to start living as a male and a year later his parents told him the truth.  David was given male hormones, his breasts were removed, and he had a constructed penis installed.

After the real story came out, researchers at John Hopkins decided to find out what had happened to other boys that they decided would live as females.  They located twenty-five of them.  Each enjoyed rough-and-tumble play.  Fourteen had declared themselves boys, with one doing so as early as at five-years-old.

Simone de Beauvoir

The Ugly Implications of Feminism

If males and females should put the same amount of time and effort towards work, than the principle of equality demands that men do just as much work raising children.  As feminist Susan Okin has written about her just world:

In its social structures and practices, one’s sex would have no more relevance than one’s eye color or the length of one’s toes.  No assumptions would be made about “male” and “female” roles; childbearing would be so conceptually separate from child rearing and other family responsibilities that it would be a cause for surprise, and no little concern, if men and women were not equally responsible for domestic life or if children were to spend much more time with one parent than the other.

Presumably, since we don’t want a world where people do more of what they don’t like or aren’t good at, we can socially construct one where men and women will like or dislike child rearing equally.  According to Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, “Motherly love ain’t everything it has been cracked up to be.”

Getting in the way of these egalitarian fantasies are the wishes of actual women.  In surveys, women are more likely than men to say that they enjoy spending time with infants.  Sweden, always on the cutting edge, decided in the 1970s to allow parental leave for a family only if the father took it.  The government undertook a propaganda campaign to get men to take care of their children.  To this day, Swedish mothers take parental leave twice as often as fathers do and for six times as long.  Similar evidence comes from the Israeli kibbutzim.  These small communities aimed specifically at doing away with traditional sex roles.  At the beginning, children were raised away from their parents.  After lobbying by young mothers, the family is once again the center of society.

No wonder that in 1975 feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir wrote:

No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.  It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.

This authoritarian streak is part of mainstream feminism.  Women’s advocates will support day care subsidies but not tax breaks for dependents, because the former is only financially beneficial if women work.

Perhaps it is the childlessness of feminists that makes them unable to understand their fellow women.  The peptide oxytocin is the most important nurturing hormone.  It promotes bonding and a relaxed emotional state.  It’s released in males during orgasm and in females while they are pregnant or breastfeeding.  Females have more receptors for the hormone and the number increases when a woman is pregnant.  Rhoads explains:

Oxytocin and prolactin, another hormone that surges during pregnancy and breastfeeding, change women’s personalities in ways that make them better mothers.  These hormones seem to make routine more tolerable.  Compared with other women their age, pregnant and breastfeeding women have been found to be more tolerant of monotony.  They are also more prone to please and obey-a trait that some researchers think is nature’s way of making them more ready “to ‘take orders’ from their babies.”  Even the act of stroking her baby releases oxytocin in the mother, causing her to feel a “beatific calm” and somewhat sedated.

. . . Many women feel euphoric or exhilarated while nursing.  A few even have orgasms.

When asked to rate how important on a 10 point scale different parts of their lives are to their happiness, 86 percent of mothers say that their children are a 10 while only 30 percent of working women give their careers a rating that high.  Many women who buy into the worldview of the nihilists end up regretting it.  Sylvia Hewlett set out to write a book on women who had achieved great things.  After interviewing the first ten, she was struck by the fact that each one was childless.  Not a single woman was so by choice.  Hewlett then went out and commissioned a survey of women who were making more than $60,000 a year in midcareer.  When they graduated from college, 14 percent knew they didn’t want children but 33 percent ended up childless.  Hewlett wrote that she was “continually surprised — and humbled — by how raw and near to the surface the emotions” were.  A women said to Hewlett that is was “frightening, this yearning for a child — it’s hard to fathom the desperate urgency.”  There is no equivalent feeling in childless successful men.  Quite a few of the older women had unrealistic expectations of being able to get pregnant in their 40s.  They were like Hillary Clinton, who said at the age of 49 that she might like to have another child.

Not even ideological feminists are immune.  A childless newswoman from Australia said that she was “Angry that I was so foolish to take the word of my feminist mothers as gospel.  Angry that I was daft enough to believe female fulfillment came with a leather briefcase.”  A female journalist with a Yale degree said that when she realized that she wanted to mother her baby, “a huge and terrifying abyss” opened up beneath her.

A primate female is built for birthing and raising children.  Her psychological makeup and hormonal balance evolved for it.  Some skills are remarkably specialized.  When a baby cries in pain, mothers and fathers react the same way.  But when the cry is “I want” (food, comfort) the female is quicker to respond.  When childless women watch a video of a baby crying their heart rates accelerate.  Those of childless men decelerate.

As much as women need children, children need their mothers.  Infants prefer their moms to their dads.  One researcher explains the subtle dance that goes on when a child is nursing:

During a feeding, dozens of events occur.  The baby sucks, winces, squirms, relaxes, lets go of the nipple, burps, falls asleep, hiccups, smiles, roots, cries, opens his eyes, tenses his face or softens his expression.  His mother rocks, sits still, hums, is silent, adjusts her position, tenses, relaxes, gazes, smiles, talks, pats, strokes, lifts the baby, puts him down.  Each event is a remark.

It’s unclear whether fathers have interactions of comparable complexity with their infants because it’s difficult to find men who are with their babies long enough to be researched.  One study found that men on average talked to their infants 38 seconds per day.

While in the womb, a baby can recognize a mother’s heartbeat and voice.  After birth, he is calmed by both.  In one experiment researchers took monkey babies away from their mothers and noted the “grief, listlessness, the obvious and heart-rendering despair.”  One person involved declared, “Thank God, we only have to do it once to prove the point.”  If only our culture showed such consideration for human children.

The Chivalrous Conservative

Men are given much less attention than women in this book.  While the tragedy of Title IX and the havoc its wrecked on male sports is given its own chapter, besides that things are supposedly going pretty well for men.  According to Rhoads, “The sexual revolution gave men, not women, what they wanted.”  Perhaps a very small minority of men.  Rhoads writes that on college campuses today women sleep around, and in general it’s men who decide if the relationship continues.  That wasn’t the experience of most college students I knew.

I’m guessing that the sample that the author worked with was biased.  Men who aren’t doing well with women generally don’t like to talk about their nonexistent sex lives, and many aren’t above lying when they do.  The female sample is also unlikely to be representative.  The author tells us about pretty girls who gain weight so men will leave them alone, but the views of females too fat to even attract ugly men aren’t given much consideration.  Although the latter is most certainly more common, girls whose attractiveness and not obesity is the source of their pain are much more likely to talk about it.

There is a tendency noted by Roger Devlin for anti-feminist conservatives to cast themselves as the true defenders of women’s rights. Attention is given to the fact that women aren’t attracted to men who are beneath them in status (making it extremely difficult for high-achieving women to find husbands) but not much to the men who lose status and mating opportunities because their jobs go to women.  Affirmative action is not mentioned.  While it would be pointless to get into a discussion about who — men, women or children — have been most victimized by feminism, ignoring the plight of males is itself a product of this evil ideology.

The Need for Righteous Anger

At the beginning of his chapter on the psychoanalytic movement in the The Culture of Critique Kevin MacDonald quotes Paul Churchland who said: “How such an elaborate theory could have become so widely accepted — on the basis of no systematic evidence or critical experiments . . . is something that sociologists of science and popular culture have yet to fully explain.”  The same thing has to be asked about feminism.  How did a movement so destructive to both utilitarian and biological interests gain such widespread acceptance?

It’s really may not that much of a mystery at all.  We’ve got these giant brains, and sometimes they lead us astray.  Religious groups that don’t believe in procreation have popped up and gone extinct.  The Western world has become such a death cult.  The nihilists will leave this planet and the patriarchal shall inherit the earth.

Rhoads notes that his classes on sex differences are overwhelmingly female.  The young co-eds are on the edge of their seats while the few men look bored.  The author writes fondly about the young “radical feminists” he’s had in his classes.  He’s too kind.  My reaction to leftists has been closer to that of Paul Gottfried, who said in his Encounters that over the years he “developed a Nietzschean reaction to the girly men and virago women that populate university settings.”  Feminists and multiculturalists changed society while motivated with a burning hatred for those they considered the epitome of evil, not by making friends with those they considered simply misguided. It’s a lesson we ought to learn.

Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in China

Francis Galton said that the first country to undertake a dedicated program of eugenics would conquer the world.  It shouldn’t be surprising that a country ruled by the most intelligent race in the world would realize that he was right.  Researcher Frank DiKötter relies on the orignal sources to tell us about the history of eugenics in China and the cultural influences of its ideas in Imperfect Conceptions.

Early Chinese Attitudes Toward Childbirth, Sexuality

The first three fourths of the book deals with attitudes in China in the centuries before the communist takeover.  Much of it is speculation.  Only a minority of a minority (the coastal elites) ever wrote anything and left a record of their thoughts.  The most interesting thing about some of the Chinese attitudes is how similar many of them are to European ideas.

They believed that too much masturbation or sex “wastes” semen and produces deformed offspring.  Europeans for centuries didn’t like masturbation either.  Is there an evolutionary reason for this?  Perhaps it serves as a substitute for sex and is bad for the gene pool.  Or maybe making the masses prudish is an evolutionary strategy of the elites.  We also have to be open to the possibility that there is no Darwinian reason at all; when we see sperm shooting out of a penis it’s natural to think that the supply is getting depleted.

Sex was never treated as a source of pleasure.  When writing on it appeared it was always to tell a morality tale or give advice on producing healthy children.  Writers warned that if a man was drunk during conception the children would be dim-witted.  A story is told about a young man who had homosexual relations with a neighbor, turned into a woman and ended up pregnant.  In the 16th century, pediatrician Wan Quan claimed:

In ancient times, women lived in separate quarters and did not have sexual intercourse with their husbands after they became pregnant, hence they had no difficulty during delivery.  Many of their children were born virtuous and suffered from few disorders.  Today, people show no restrictions and indulge in their desires to their hearts’ content . . . there are children born with numerous disorders, some entirely covered with small pox pustules: all are the result of excessive sexual congress.

DiKötter points to a fascinating difference between Western and Eastern approaches to knowledge.  While Western scientists aimed to stand out and gain recognition for their discoveries, Chinese intellectuals were more interested in allying with a school of thought and paying homage to their intellectual forefathers.  This is consistent with a whole host of East/West differences that I’ve

By the time of the Republican era (1911 – 1949), Chinese intellectuals, like their Western counterparts, believed in eugenics and were enamored with the idea of “science” being mankind’s savior.  In the 1930s Shaanxi province’s governor endorsed a paper titled “Draft for the Implementation of Shaanxi’s Race Reform.”  It called for government regulation of marriage and the state ensuring “superior births.” Some upheld Nazi practices as worthy of emulation.  It was only the Japanese invasion and then the Chinese civil war that stopped a full blown eugenics program by mid-century.

Eugenics as State Policy

Not many rational policies were implemented during the Mao era.  He may have led the most impractical instance of putting egalitarian ideals into practice in all of human history.  By the 1970s, nurses were promoted to doctors, and doctors were being relegated to cleaning windows.  Thankfully, the much more sane Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1978.  The author writes:

Although the one-child family programme, by which the government only in exceptional circumstances allows parents to have more than one or occasionally two children, is relatively well known, an important component of these policies has been the improvement of the quality of new-born babies.  The control of the ‘quality’ of births has been regarded in China as being no less important than the control of ‘quantity’: both have regularly been heralded as the twin goals in the control of reproduction since 1978.

The first conference of the China Genetics Institute was held that year.  Government officials and medical professionals supported making eugenic research a top priority.  All policies dealing with reproductive health now exist within a eugenics framework.  A couple isolated voices protest, but according to the author suggesting that there’s much diversity of opinion on this issue would be misleading.  Scientific journals, like those in the West, publish articles on the importance of heredity in determining intelligence.  Studies are done showing that retardation also depends on genes.  A detailed report in Fujian province showed that fertility trends were dysgenic.  There’s no New Left lobby to block this research.

The government has waged a war on inbreeding, popular in rural areas and amongst some minorities.  The author makes the compelling argument that even if much of this battle may be based on solid science, the crusade serves a symbolic purpose.  Cosmopolitan elites across the world tend to see those practicing congenital relations as holdouts against modernity.

Legitimizing the reach of the government into families and lineages, (the battle against cousin marriage) endows society with unprecedented powers of intervention and regulation into the personal lives of individuals in the name of public health.

In 1995, the famous Eugenics Law was passed, making prenatal screening mandatory and “encouraging” the unfit not to reproduce nationwide.  Many provinces have their own, much stricter laws.  Support for these programs reaches into the highest levels of government.  Party officials who are eugenicists have centered around former Premier Li Peng (quoted as saying “Idiots breed idiots”), an outspoken advocate of good breeding.  He has close ties to former Minister of Public Health Chen Minzhang, the man who introduced the Eugenics Law.  In 1996 the government is alleged to have moved towards a policy of encouraging the more fit to breed.  Officials are aware that this is unpopular with the “international community” (i.e., white elitist do-gooders) and not many details are available.  Numbers on how many people have been sterilized are hard to come by.

Especially encouraging is the overwhelming support that these policies have among the mid-level elites.  The journal Population and Eugenics ran an article called “The Population Policy in Singapore” that advocated that the Chinese follow Singapore in encouraging the higher classes to have more children.  A different eugenics journal warned about the “bitter wine fermented by opposing eugenics” by showing two deformed lovers and their even more hideous offspring.

Improving the gene pool isn’t all that the Chinese government is doing to ensure more healthy births.  Steps are taken to make sure that pregnant women have their medical needs met.  At the level of consumer culture, claims are made that reading to a child in the womb or having the fetus listen to classical music can improve its intelligence.  Similar ideas also exists in the West.  People can’t do anything about their genes, so it makes sense that a market exists to improve the quality of children by environmental interventions.  Like in pre-modern times, women’s thoughts and emotions are thought to determine the health of the child.  Pregnant women are encouraged to read intellectually stimulating books and listen to classical music while avoiding romance novels and pop songs.

The concept of race doesn’t get much attention in China, but one author does claim that the twentieth century will see a competition between “whites” and “yellows” for world domination, with the winner being partly determined by who masters genetic engineering technology (Richard Lynn’s theory).

The idea that the collective is more important than the individual extends to other related areas of health.  Mercy killing for sick newborns are “rarely seen to pose any particular ethical problem.”  A biologist belonging to the Chinese Academy of Social Science points to the cost of caring for severely handicapped infants and the pain that they cause their families.

While there’s no equivalent to the Western idea of life being sacred from the moment of conception, extreme medical experiments are frowned upon.  For example, it is claimed that during the Cultural Revolution a chimp was impregnated with human sperm in an attempt to create a new race for military use.  The ape died three months after the start of her pregnancy.  No mention is made of whether research was done on the fetus.  There’s a story of the Soviets having conducted similar experiments without success.

At the end of the book the DiKötter deals with the ethical issues of eugenics and gives his own opinion on the feasibility of such programs.  I wish he would’ve left this out.  Up until this point he came across as a neutral researcher.  Then, he starts to claim that eugenics may not work because traits like intelligence and most diseases are polygenic (determined by more than one gene).  Of course that’s true, but if no traits determined by more than one gene could be selected for, then animal domestication couldn’t work.  Nobody claims that intelligence in dogs is determined by a single gene, but different breeds differ and can be made smarter or stupider.  He also worries about eugenics colluding with patriarchy.  Hearing a man come from the race that is going extinct due to women’s liberation worrying about male dominance is laughable.  “Better extinct than politically incorrect” is the rallying cry of the modern liberal.

A World Without Liberalism

A high IQ population, in which the best minds aren’t systematically destroyed by egalitarian evil, does exist out there.  That should give us hope.  And if there’s a silver lining to the decline of the West, it’s that our governments won’t be able to feminize the one billion Chinese the way they did the Germans and Japanese (putting them on the road to oblivion) and are seeking to do to the Muslims and Russians.

For more information on Chinese eugenics, see my review of Richard Lynn’s Eugenics.  For more on Darwinist thought in China see here. For an analysis of the famous Chinese Eugenics law see here.

From HBD Books, July 24, 2009

Francis Parker Yockey, 1917 - 1960

Race, as has been shown, is not a unit of existence, but is an aspect of existence. Specifically it is the aspect of existence in which the relation of the human being to the great cosmic rhythms is revealed. It is thus the non-individual aspect of Life, whether it be the life of a plant, animal, or human being.

The plant exhibits — at least, not to us — no consciousness, i.e., no tension with its environment. The plant has thus only race, so to speak, for it is totally submerged in the cosmic flow. The animal exhibits tension, consciousness, individuality. Man has in addition self-consciousness and the ability and necessity of living a higher life in the realm of symbols. All men have this, but the difference in degree between primitive man and Culture-man in this respect is so vast that it seems almost a difference in kind.

It is the racial beat which informs primitive impulses, which informs action generally. Opposed to it is the illuminated part of the mind, the rootless reason, the intellect. The stronger these things are in relation to the racial plane, the more the existence bears an intellectual instead of a racial stamp.

Each individual, as well as each higher organic unit, has these two aspects. Race impels toward self-preservation, continuance of the cycle of generations, increase of power. Intellect decides the meaning of the Life, and the aim, and this may, for various reasons, deny one or all of these fundamental urges. The celibacy of the priest and the sterility of the libertine both come from intellect, but one of them is an expression of High Culture, and the other is the denial of Culture, an expression of total degeneracy. Intellect may thus be in the service of Culture, or opposed to it.

Race is, in the first instance — in its subjective sense — what a man feels. This influences, whether immediately or eventually, what he does. A man of race is not born to slavery. If his intellect counsel him to a temporary submission, rather than an heroic death, in the hope of future changes, it is a mere postponement of his breaking out. The man without race will submit permanently to any humiliation, any insult, any dishonor, so long as he is permitted to live. The continuance of breathing and digestion are Life to the man without race. To the man of race, Life itself represents no value, but only Life under the right conditions, affirmative Life, rich, expressive and growing.

Heroism can be motivated from either side of the soul: the martyr dies for the Truth which he knows, the fighting man who dies with weapons in his hands rather than submit to his enemies dies for the honor that he feels. But the man who dies for something higher shows that he has race, regardless of his intellectualized motives. For Race is the faculty of being true to one’s self. It is the placing of a beyond-value on one’s own individual soul.

In this subjective sense, Race is not the way one talks, looks, gestures, walks, it is not a matter of stock, color, anatomy, skeletal structure, or anything else objective. Men of Race are scattered through all populations everywhere, through all races, peoples, nations. In each unit they make up the warriors, the leaders of action, the creators in the sphere of politics and war.

Thus in the subjective sense, there is also a hierarchy of race. Above the men of race, below — those without race. The first are swept up into action and events by the great cosmic rhythm of motion, the second are passed over by History. The first are the materials of high History, the second have outlasted every Culture, and when the stillness resumes its sway over the landscape after the whirlwind of events, these are the great mass. The Chinese mothers counsel their children with the ancient admonition: “Make thy heart small.” This is the wisdom of the man without race, and of the race without will. The men of race are skimmed off every population that is caught up into the course of motion of a High Culture, and this process continues through the generations of History on the heights. What is left is the fellaheen.

Race in the subjective sense is thus seen to be a matter of instinct. The man with strong instincts has race, the man with weak or bad instincts has it not. Strength of intellect has nothing to do with the existence of race — it may merely, in some cases, such as that of the man who takes a vow of celibacy — influence the expression of a part of race. Strong intellect and strong instincts can co-exist — think of the Gothic bishops who led their flocks to war — they are merely opposed directions of thought and action, but it is the instincts that furnish the driving force for great intellectual accomplishments also. The center of gravity of ascendant Life is on the side of instinct, will, race, blood. Life which places rationalistic ideals of “individualism,” “happiness,” “freedom” before the perpetuation and increase of power is decadent. Decadent means — moving toward extinction, extinction of higher Life in particular, and finally even of the life of the race. The intellectual of the great city is the type of the man without race. In every Civilization, he has been the inner ally of the outer barbarian.

This quality of having race has, obviously, no connection with which race one feels community. Race in the objective sense is a creation of history. One’s destiny must express itself within a certain framework — the framework of Fate. Thus a man of race born in Kirghizia belongs by Fate to the barbarian world of Asia with its historical mission of destruction of the Western Civilization. Rare exceptions are of course possible — Life submits to no generalization entirely. Some Poles, Ukrainians, or even Russians, might be impelled by their souls to share the spirit of the West. If so, they belong to the Western race, and every healthy, ascendant race accepts recruits who come in on its terms and who have the proper feeling. In the same way, there are numerous intellectuals in the West who feel community with the outer idea of Asiatic Nihilism. How numerous they are is indicated by the journalism, novels and plays that live from them. But the converse would not be true of men without race — they are not even acceptable to the enemy. They have nothing to contribute to an organic group — they are the human grains of sand, atoms of intellect, without cohesion upwards or downwards.

Every race, no matter how transitory it may be contemplated from the viewpoint of History, expresses a certain idea, a certain plane of existence by its life, and its idea is bound to be attractive to some individuals outside it. Thus in Western life, we are not unfamiliar with the man who, after associating with Jews, reading their literature, and adopting their viewpoint, actually becomes a Jew in the fullest sense of the word. It is not necessary that he have “Jewish blood.” The converse is also known: many Jews have adopted Western feelings and rhythms, and have thereby acquired Western race. This process — contemptuously called “assimilation” by the Jewish leaders — threatened during the nineteenth century the very existence of the Jewish race by ultimate absorption of its total racial body into the Western races. To halt it, the leaders of the Jews evolved the program of Zionism, which was solely an expedient for maintaining the unity of the Jewish race, and maintaining its continued existence as such. For this reason they also recognized the value of anti-semitism of the social type. It was serving the same purpose of preserving the racial unity of the Jews.

II

The dying out of racial instincts means the same thing to an individual as it does to a race, people, nation, State, Culture: unfruitfulness, lack of will-to-power, lack of ability to believe in or follow great aims, lack of inner discipline, desire for a life of ease and pleasure.

The symptoms of this racial decadence in various parts of the Western Civilization are manifold. There is first the ghastly distortion of the sexual life arising from the complete dissociation of sexual love from reproduction. The great symbol of this in the Western Civilization is everything suggested by the name Hollywood. The message of Hollywood is the total significance of sexual love as an end in itself — the erotic without consequences. The sexual love of two grains of sand, two rootless individuals, not the primeval sexual love looking to the continuity of Life, the family of many children. One child is permitted, as being a more complicated toy than a dog, perhaps even two, one boy and one girl — but the family of many children is a subject for humor to this decadent outlook.

The instinct of decadence takes many forms in this realm: dissolution of Marriage by divorce laws, attempts to discard, through repeal or non-enforcement, the laws against abortion, preaching in the form of novel, drama, journalism, the identification of “happiness” with sexual love, holding it up as the great value, before which all honor, duty, patriotism, consecration of Life to a higher aim, must give way. An erotomania is abroad through our civilization, not indeed like the sexual obsession of the 13th century which was at least racially affirmative, in that it increased the Western Peoples, but always a purely rootless erotic-without-consequences. This spiritual disease is the suicide of the race.

The weakening of the will — Nietzsche called it “paralysis of will” — another symptom of dying out of racial instincts, leads to a total deterioration of public life in the afflicted races. Government leaders dare not offer a stern program to their masses of human grains of sand: they abdicate, but remain in office as private men. Government ceases; the only functions that continue are the ones that have always gone on, no new aim, no sacrifices. Keep the old going; no creation! No effort! That would be too hard. Keep the pleasures going, the panem et circenses. Never mind the necessities of life, we are willing to renounce them as long as we have the pleasures.

This weakening of the will leads to voluntary abandonment of empires conquered with the blood of millions over ten generations. It leads to abysmal hatred of whoever and whatever represents sternness, creation, the Future. One of its products is Pacifism, and the only way a racially-dissolving population can be driven to war is through conscription coupled with pacifist propaganda — “This is the last war — actually it is a war against war.” Only an intellectual could be taken in by such stark Unreality. The weak will of society manifests itself in the Bolshevism of the upper classes, the sympathy with the enemies of society. Anyone with unimpaired will however is really felt to be the enemy — even cogent reasoning is hated: ideals are so much less demanding.

Mediocrity rises over the horizon of a dying race as its last great ideal; total mediocrity, renunciation of all greatness and distinction of any kind whatever; also mediocrity of the racial blood-stream — anyone can come in now, not only on our terms, for there are no more terms, and there are no racial differences, everything is one, dull, eventless, mediocre.

The weakening of the will is not hard put to find an ideology which rationalizes it as “progress,” everything desirable, the aim of all previous history. The democracy-liberalism complex lies to hand, and it acquires in such times the meaning of Death — of race, nation and Culture. There are no human differences, everyone is equal, men are women, women are men, “the individual” is everything. Life is a long holiday whose main problem is devising new and more stupid pleasures, there is no God, no State, off with the head of anyone who says there is a mission, who wishes to resurrect Authority.

These symptoms, or similar ones, will be found present at the demise of every upper stratum whose will is weakened. Thus Tocqueville has described for us how the French upper stratum of 1789 had no suspicion whatever of the impending Revolution, how nobility waxed enthusiastic over the “natural goodness of Humanity,” the “virtuous people,” the “innocence of Man” while the Terror of 1793 lay before their very feet — spectacle terrible et ridicule. Did not the Petrine nobility of Russia up until 1917 go through the same performance? The Tsar resisted pleas to leave while there was time with “My people will not hurt me.” Their picture of the Russian peasant was that of a happy, simple muzhik, basically good. Similarly the weakening of the Western will in certain countries was shown by the deluge of pro-Russian propaganda spread, sometimes with official encouragement, in those countries from 1920 to 1960.

from Francis Parker Yockey (Ulick Varange), Imperium (1948; Costa Mesa, Cal.: Noontide Press, 1962), 292-99. Imperium is available in the TOQ Online Bookshop.