“Collateral Damage” or “Targets of Opportunity”? Children of Divorce in the War of the Sexes

Prof. Andrew Fraser

No-fault divorce is a cultural artefact.  In other words, this “progressive” reform of family law is a product of human artifice.  Inevitably, any such cultural innovation will produce what economists soothingly describe as “negative externalities.”  The most toxic by-product of divorce law reform has been the concomitant breakdown of families with children.  This epidemic of dysfunctional families is not the unintended consequence of legal changes introduced for the best of reasons.  Did not conservatives predict that no-fault divorce would undermine the foundations of family life?  Did not churches remind secular reformers that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?

The fact is that some, perhaps all, of those who promoted the putative “democratization” of divorce intended to subvert the traditional institutions of marriage and family (particularly as practiced among white Anglo-Saxon Protestants).  Reform was marketed as a compassionate response to the personal plight of people “trapped” in loveless marriages.  Decades later, Andrew Root concedes that the ideal of love-based marriage did not create divorce, but insists that “it was the love-based union that democratized it.”[1]  But is marriage really about “love” in any recognizably Christian sense when the law enables any married person to sacrifice on the secular altar of personal happiness the health of society, perhaps even the future of Anglo-European civilization?  Neither legal prohibitions nor religious taboos, much less social shaming, constrain the selfishly unilateral repudiation of solemn matrimonial oaths.  Not surprisingly, the end of matrimony as a binding, irreversible covenant between husband and wife inaugurated an age of cascading, ever-more socially corrosive cultural revolutions. 

Practical Theology

For Christians engaged in youth ministry, the social costs of no-fault divorce pose a pressing problem of practical theology.  Unfortunately, mainstream churches tend to accommodate themselves to no-fault divorce as an accomplished, irreversible feature of our secular age, even as they confront the presumptively unintended consequences for children and young people affected by family breakdown.  Their pastoral focus is on helping individuals to cope with the existential trauma caused by divorce.  For Christian humanists, such as Andrew Root, all children of divorce are equal.  They are received into the church as generic human beings suffering from the slings and arrows of outrageous personal fortune.  Following Karl Barth, Root believes that the existential core of a child’s being cannot be grasped in terms of contingent categories such as race or nationality.  Rather, it is the categorical distinction between male and female which literally brings all human children into being.  The biological fusion of male and female engenders the primal micro-community which endows every child with an identity, however fragile.[2]  Thereafter, an impersonal process of social evolution eventually empowered self-seeking parents to break-up the family unit.  No one is to blame.  The children of divorce are simply collateral damage on the home front in the never-ending but forever mutating war of the sexes.

Root draws upon the work of Charles Taylor and James K.A. Smith, portraying “modernity” as an existential condition or “immanent frame” within which we come to see and be seen, to speak and to act as human beings in this, the latest stage of social evolution.[3]  In our secular age, “all traditions of authority” have been rendered “open to doubt.”  Modernity frees individuals from all past constraints, opening a cultural space for the ideal of love-based marriage: “couples are free to choose a love partner outside of the desire, need, or expectations of a community of generations.”[4]  But when marriage partners fall out of love, what happens to the children—the indivisible products, according to Root, of their parents’ earlier love for one another?

Divorce is then revealed as the “tragic underbelly of the liberation of marriage and family from being centred on land or labour to being centred on love.”  Root reminds us that while a divorce decree handed down as of right may have come as a “great gift” of liberation “to one or both parents, it was a silent nightmare to a child.”[5]  The task of the church, he believes, is to bind up the existential wounds inflicted upon the children of divorce.  Root refuses to assign blame for the damage done to children by parents, politicians, judges, or the many other interests dependent upon the “divorce industry.”  From his humanist perspective, the church is not a combatant in contemporary cultural wars; rather, it sits on the sidelines, offering aid and comfort to all those directly affected by family breakdown—parents, children, and grandparents alike.

Young people bear the primary costs of divorce law reform.  One wonders: who then, apart from ostensibly “liberated” parents, benefits from these recent revolutionary changes in family law?  As far back as 1977, Christopher Lasch identified feminists and others engaged in the search for “alternate life-styles” as the core constituency facilitating the rise of the divorce industry.  Then, as now, both friends and enemies of marriage invoke “the ideology of nonbinding commitments.”  Both “uphold divorce as a ‘creative act’—the friends of marriage because it provides a necessary safety valve, and its enemies because it can be seen as a step toward some new kind of family structure.”[6]  Thus far, the enemies of Christian patriarchy appear to have won the psycho-cultural war on the allegedly oppressive, heteronormative, patriarchal model of the nuclear family.  

The Political Dimension of Practical Theology

Judging by Root’s work, there is scant resistance within mainstream Christianity to the femocratic regime that currently dictates public policy on marriage and the family.  He and fellow Christian humanists might benefit from exposure to the insights into political theology which the German jurist Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) derived from his experience of cultural revolution in the Weimar Republic.  Schmitt grounded the concept of politics in the concrete, existential reality of the distinction between “friend” and “enemy.”[7]

Even Christian humanists have enemies.  Applying this concept of politics to the realm of practical theology can supply youth workers with realistic insights into the nature and identity of their enemies (i.e., those hostile and inimical to faith, family, and folk).  Christian youth workers, whether they know it or not, are combatants in a long-running cultural war.  Their enemies count every psychically-scarred child of divorce as another token of victory.  Children of once-stable, white Christian monogamous marriages are not just the collateral damage of family breakdown.  In the last half century, the ontological security earlier enjoyed by white children of stable monogamous marriages became a legitimate target of opportunity for secularist social justice warriors raging against white privilege and Christian patriarchy.

Root’s account of the profound ontological insecurity found among the children of divorce is often moving.  But his prescriptions presuppose a resolutely apolitical practical theology.  He treats the existential brokenness of these young people as a generically human condition built into the social structures of late modernity.    The pain experienced by children following the collapse of their familial micro-community penetrates to the very core of personal identity.  Forced to wonder who they really are, they find themselves suspended between being and nothingness.  But, for Root, no identifiable enemy can be held responsible for such psycho-social wounds; rather, the existential crisis inflicted upon the children of divorce is the unintended by-product of hyper-individualistic, modernist culture.  Root’s humanist analysis transcends boundaries of race, religion, or nationality.  Nor is Root interested in a movement to outlaw divorce.[8]  He never entertains the thought that “normal, well-adjusted” young, white Anglo-American children (and their parents) have real political enemies, safely ensconced within the divorce industry.  Nor is he concerned to organize Christian resistance to the powerful globalist elites in politics, media, academia, law, and even the church who have done so much to subvert traditional models of matrimony.

The fact is, however, that for much of the twentieth century, two groups worked assiduously to destroy stable, monogamous families headed by patriarchal father-figures and mandated by Christian churches.  Significantly, these two groups head the list of those all-but-immune to criticism within contemporary mainline churches; namely, feminists and Jews.  Despite the cover provided by that rigorously-enforced code of silence, it is ridiculously easy to demonstrate that feminists and Jews (the categories overlap to a remarkable degree) led a multi-pronged campaign to subvert traditional, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant marriages and families.  Feminists enlisted the power of churches, corporations, and the state in their campaign to create a sexual utopia in which female sexual desire was to be liberated from patriarchal oppression.  At the same time, many Jewish intellectuals looked to the polymorphous perversity of the sexual revolution as an avenue of escape from their worst nightmare—the authoritarian personality supposedly fostered by stable monogamous Christian families.[9] 

Sexual Utopia in Power

Alongside Andrew Root’s Children of Divorce, F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power should be required reading for Christian youth workers.  The latter book is about the decline of virtue in women produced by the feminist revolt against civilization.  Devlin, an independent scholar associated with the Alt Right demonstrates that the ideal of love-based union was always more likely to appeal to women than to men.  The feminist narrative of the lonely suburban housewife trapped in a loveless marriage helps to explain why three-quarters of divorces are initiated by the female spouse (often the husband acts once he realizes that his wife wants out).[10]  Root pays no attention to such statistics.  Instead, he apparently assumes that husbands “fall out of love” at roughly the same rate as wives.  That may be a dangerous assumption.

Devlin contends that monogamy was established to constrain female sexual desire.  He argues that—absent legally-enforced matrimonial covenants—women are no more monogamous than men.  Indeed, “women are more likely than men to confuse sexual attraction with love.”  In agrarian societies, married women on farms or in small towns had fewer opportunities to indulge such attractions.  In the modern urban environment, especially when married women work outside the home, such constraints no longer apply.  Women often say they want “commitment” from a man but just as often they fall for emotionally inaccessible men who make them feel insecure.  Left to themselves, women will look for handsome, socially dominant or wealthy men.  In short, “women are attracted to men whom other women find attractive.[11]  This phenomenon is known as “hypergamy,” the well-known tendency for women to marry upwards.  Among northern European peoples, monogamy subjected female sexual desire to other interests, allowing poorer, less attractive men the opportunity to find a wife to bear and raise his children.

In principle, the abolition of stable, binding monogamous marriages leaves women’s choices free from restriction.  Guided only by their heart’s desire, “all women choose the same few men.”  Devlin points out that Casanova had 132 lovers only “because 132 different women chose him.”  Unfortunately for those devoted to the ideal of love-based unions, “it is obviously impossible for every woman to have exclusive possession of the most attractive man.”[12]  Removal of restraints on female sexual desire inevitably means that more women will want “access to men who have had multiple mates—without facing social disapproval.”  Devlin does disapprove, declaring flatly that women who have fallen out of love with their husbands “have no more ‘right’ to live out such fantasies than men do theirs.”[13]

Disabusing women of their self-serving belief in the possibility of unlimited choice will be no easy matter.  Nevertheless, it is probably the most urgent task of a practical theology ready, willing, and able to roll back the divorce industry.  Root is far too willing to give feminists (and women generally) a free pass, relieving them of primary responsibility for the ontological insecurity, not to mention the massive loss of social capital, inflicted upon the children of divorce.  By contrast, Devlin insists that feminists who support and women who initiate no-fault divorces are sapping the spiritual foundations of Anglo-European civilization.  “Civilization is very largely a matter of high-investment parenting, and that requires heavy and continuing paternal involvement.”  Unlike women, most men do not enter a marriage because they have fallen in love with their mates.  Even in a loveless marriage, “men will gladly work, fight, and sacrifice for children provided they feel sure of their own paternity.”   The most important thing that marriage offers to men is not love but the experience of leadership in a family spanning generations.[14]

Unlike Root, Devlin does not believe in gender equality.[15]  He freely acknowledges that “heterosexual monogamy is incompatible with equality between the sexes.”  Indeed, hypergamy itself requires that men exercise leadership in family life.  “Women want a man they can look up to; they leave or fall out of love with men they do not respect.”  In other words, husbands are supposed to exercise authority over their wives.[16]  The ontological insecurity suffered by the children of divorce is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the movement to strip husbands of patriarchal authority.

Devlin emphasizes the brute economic reality of marriage and family: “women and children consume resources that men are called upon to supply.”  It makes sense for men to accept such an arrangement only when marriage is a legally binding covenant, creating a life-long partnership established for the purpose of bearing and raising children.  Marriage and family are more important to both men and women than romantic courtship.  Overall, most women, Devlin believes, will be happier “by marrying an ordinary man and having children than by seeking sexual thrills, ascending the corporate heights or grinding out turgid tracts on gender theory.”[17]

Root seems altogether oblivious to the ways in which heterosexual monogamy was adapted to evolved psycho-biological differences between European men and women.  Such differences have both theological and political significance.  So, too, do the real and intractable differences between races and ethnic groups.  Stable binding monogamous marriages make sense only to peoples and nations whose culture fosters high-investment parenting.  Anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists have observed that various races and ethnic groups pursue very different reproductive strategies.  They distinguish, for example, between so-called r- and K-strategies.  Among animal species and humans alike, some populations, r-strategists, combine low-investment parenting with larger numbers of offspring.  Other species or groups—the K-strategists—have fewer offspring while investing more parental resources in each, thereby ensuring a higher survival rate.  In the United States, WASPs are K-strategists while Negroes tend to pursue the r-strategy favoured by their sub-Saharan African ancestors.  Accordingly, stable, life-long monogamous marriages characterized WASP families.  By contrast, once American Negroes were freed from legal and social pressure to conform to white cultural norms, their family structure came to resemble a polyandrous matriarchy subsidized by public welfare benefits.[18]  


Root’s existential theology is grounded implicitly in the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture of middle America for which high-investment parenting was the norm and divorce was a rare and shameful event.  Judged in accordance with historic WASP cultural standards, low-investing parenting was a sign of family dysfunction.  But just such a family structure is now typical for the vast number of black children in America raised by single mothers.  It seems unlikely that the children of unmarried black “baby mamas” suffer the same existential angst that Root finds among white children of divorce.  If that is so, one cannot help but wonder whether the proponents of divorce law reform knew or cared that white Anglo-Saxon Protestant children had more to lose from the dissolution of their families.  In other words, was the reform movement influenced by the well-known animus directed by generations of Jews towards American WASPs?[19]

Christian youth workers need to factor the reality of such ethno-political rivalries into their understanding of the existential plight into which WASP children of divorce have been plunged.  Leave aside two thousand years of church history.  Simply examine the influence exercised, directly and indirectly, by Jewish intellectuals on the divorce law reform movement in the post-war era.  That story begins with the famous studies on prejudice pioneered by Jewish scholars such as Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895–1973).[20]  These German-Jewish intellectuals-in-exile worried that Anglo-American middle-class child-rearing practices were reproducing the authoritarian personality types who flocked to follow fascist leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini.

They set out to study “a society in which variation in families can be seen as ranging from families that essentially replicate current social structure to families that produce rebellion and change in social structure.”  They strongly disapproved of “the relatively strong sense of ingroup thinking” associated with cohesive Anglo-American families.[21]  Children reared in such circumstances tend to display ethnocentric and negative attitudes towards outsiders.  Many of the Jewish scholars involved in this massive research project believed “that ethnocentrism is a sign of psychiatric disorder and that identification with humanity is the epitome of mental health.”[22]  Accordingly, they advocated permissive child-rearing practices in an open, tolerant, and ethnically-diverse society.

Stable and cohesive gentile families were diagnosed “as pathological, despite the fact that this is exactly the type of family necessary for the continuation of a strong sense of Jewish identity.”[23]  In the intellectual climate producing such studies, it was not difficult to enlist social science in the campaign to subvert the matrimonial foundations of Christian patriarchy.  It was axiomatic for Adorno that “allegiance to ingroups indicates psychopathology in gentiles.”  The “epitome of psychological health” became “the individualist who is completely detached from all ingroups, including his or her family.”  Such persons were not just prime customers for the divorce industry; they were also thought to be “less prone to anti-Semitism.”[24]

Feminists and Jews won a resounding victory in the culture wars when no-fault divorce was introduced.  A youth ministry reaching out to the children of divorce must learn and teach that history lesson.  Parents and children, alike, in broken families need to know that they were the targets in a psychological warfare campaign waged by feminists and Jews against their faith, family, and folk.  Only then will God give them the spiritual strength to fight back against their declared enemies.

*Andrew Fraser is a retired law professor who has just completed a theology degree at Charles Sturt University in Australia. He is the author of The WASP Question (London: Arktos, 2011) and Dissident Dispatches from Divinity School (London: Arktos, 2017).

[1] Andrew Root, The Children of Divorce: The Loss of Family as the Loss of Being (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 20.

[2] Ibid., 109.

[3] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Belknap Press, 2007; James K.A. Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2014).

[4] Root, Children of Divorce, 28-29.

[5] Ibid., 4, ix.

[6] Christopher Lasch, Haven in a Heartless World: The Family Besieged (New York: Basic Books, 1977), 134-140.

[7] Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political tr. George Schwab (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1976), 26–27. See also, Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985).

[8] Root, Children of Divorce, 122.

[9] See, especially, Theodor Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, R. N. & Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality, Publication No. III of the American Jewish Committee Social Studies Series (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950). But, not to be ignored is the New Left classic by Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud (New York: Vintage 1961).

[10] F. Roger Devlin, Sexual Utopia in Power: The Feminist Revolt Against Civilization (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015), 26–27.

[11] Ibid., 43, 38, 8.

[12] Ibid., 19–20.

[13] Ibid., 8.

[14] Ibid., 111.

[15] Root, Children of Divorce, 101.

[16] Devlin, Sexual Utopia in Power, 39–40.

[17] Ibid., 38-39.

[18] J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, third editon (Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000), 199–216.

[19] Note that Jewish hostility towards European Christianity more broadly is a matter of historical record.  See E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History (South Bend, IN: Fidelity Press, 2008).

[20] Theodor Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, R. N. & Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality, Publication No. III of the American Jewish Committee Social Studies Series (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950).

[21] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport, CN: Praeger, 1998; Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002), 178.

[22] Ibid., 173.

[23] Ibid., 178.

[24] Ibid., 188.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

40 Comments to "“Collateral Damage” or “Targets of Opportunity”? Children of Divorce in the War of the Sexes"

  1. Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
    June 25, 2017 - 11:05 am | Permalink

    Devlin contends that monogamy was established to constrain female sexual desire.

    So how about establishing something that’ll constrain men’s sexual desires, too? Marriage with its ideology of monogamy sure aren’t a roaring success in that respect.

    • Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
      June 25, 2017 - 4:32 pm | Permalink

      Monogamy was invented so that the female could have the privilege of a male caring for her offspring. This guarantees higher survival rates of children. That said, since time immemorial females have tried to make many males believe that her baby is theirs as well. This way the baby would have the attentions of several men, all convinced that the baby is theirs.

      • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
        June 27, 2017 - 7:04 am | Permalink

        since time immemorial females have tried to make many males believe that her baby is theirs as well. This way the baby would have the attentions of several men, all convinced that the baby is theirs.

        Which females, when and where? I don’t see how that would work out – “many” supposed daddies showing up to see the child. The chances of their bumping into each other are quite good, and then the jig would be up for the popular lass and her baby. And then she’d repeat the story for all her kids? Do the math. I kind of doubt that this was a common practice by women. I mean, come on. I don’t want a whole bunch of guys showing up at my place claiming that they want to be father to my kids. One good father is all that’s needed.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          June 27, 2017 - 10:40 am | Permalink

          Apropos the sentences you quote, please stop asking for evidence or even a coherent rationale, Barkingmad! You need to awaken to the fact that this rationality stuff gets real old real fast. If you aren’t careful, you’ll soon find yourself accused and convicted of advanced psychopathy—and need I remind you that psychopathy is the current go-to explanation for what ails and drives our primal enemies?

          On a less facetious note, the rhetorical query in your original comment highlights a fundamental characteristic of much of what passes for deep thought among leftists, rightists, and centrists, whether Jews, Gentiles, or hard-core Odinists: an almost reflexive assumption that our forbears were simply too simpleminded or unsophisticated or shortsighted or bigoted to have accurately assessed human impulses, motivations, and intrinsic failings. Specific to the matter of monogamous marriage, surely a part of its genius, a part upon which many of our forbears were agreed, is that it addresses the differing but complementary structural failings and the tendencies to mismanagement of the sexual impulse—what Christians were formerly unembarrassed to call sin and temptation—of men and women both. Nor does one have to be familiar with such more recent observers of the social scene as Samuel Johnson and Jane Austen to get the message that even the day before yesterday, the more dubious the paternity of a woman’s child (whether the woman be married or not), the more precarious her and her child’s very survival, let alone their place in the order of society.

        • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
          June 27, 2017 - 5:19 pm | Permalink

          @Pierre & Brooklyn Dave. LMWAO! P.S. We were forced to study Jane Austen’s novels in school but being teenage girls, we didn’t get it. Those books put most of us to sleep.

          Re “sin”. For any liberals here: we aren’t sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners.

          • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
            June 28, 2017 - 4:17 pm | Permalink

            @ Barkingmad

            Not much worry about Jane Austen in schools today. Dead White European Male writers are out (unless acted or filmed with race and gender diversity) and Jane is now the Honorary Dead Male – too white, too prim, and too English.

            Holocaust heroines and Black lesbians are girl teenage models in fiction today.

      • Brooklyn Dave's Gravatar Brooklyn Dave
        June 27, 2017 - 11:49 am | Permalink

        Agree wholeheartedly – from both a woman standpoint and a guy’s as well. Tell me what guy is going to go and visit “all” the children he supposedly sired? That would be less time for (name your favorite prehistoric pastime) with his buddies and continuing to seek further love interests.

      • Gbon's Gravatar Gbon
        June 27, 2017 - 2:58 pm | Permalink

        Ger Tzedek

        I’m fairly knowledgable about history but have never heard about societies where women try to claim multiple fathers for one child. Do you refer to the old Nordic customs of fostering; sending children to live with other families? Or do you refer to society as a whole helping to raise children via schools, orphanages, sports apprenticeship etc.?
        Polygamy, one man with several wives is fairly common in human history. But can you explain your multiple father theory?

        Please explain

  2. Seek's Gravatar Seek
    June 25, 2017 - 11:37 am | Permalink

    The idea that divorce springs primarily if not solely from a “selfish” desire to maximize personal autonomy is a decades-old, religiously-driven straw man. Almost no man or woman who has gone through a divorce — and I’ve known many who have, beginning with myself — did so out of some fleeting, primitive, adolescent-level longing for happiness. They divorced out of a desire not to continue to live as a slave, subject to fear, humiliation and financial ruin.

  3. koconnell's Gravatar koconnell
    June 25, 2017 - 11:57 am | Permalink

    I’m bewildered in this very good essay by the constant reference to WASP values in relation to marriage. WASPs may once have held to such values, but that is a long time ago. The Catholic Church, unmentioned here, is the only Christian church that expressly forbids divorce. This does not stop some Catholics from practising divorce, but even they know what the rules are. And look at the anniversary columns of local newspapers almost anywhere in the western world. The marriages that last are almost always Catholic.

  4. proudwhiteman's Gravatar proudwhiteman
    June 25, 2017 - 1:32 pm | Permalink

    WASP is an ethnic slur. It should not appear on this web site.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      June 25, 2017 - 10:59 pm | Permalink

      Homosexuals have appropriated “queer” and use it affectionately. Blacks have a monopoly on their preferred slur. Popular meaning can be turned around. I like goyim, too. It’s amusing and can open a discussion on Jewish chauvinism.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        July 1, 2017 - 3:56 pm | Permalink

        @ Trenchant

        Re “goyim”: Jews will quite easily refer to “Gentiles” as “goys” and use the adjective “goyisch[e]”. However, surely it only means “the (other) nations”. The idea that it means “cattle” seems based on a single rabbinical comment in the Talmud. I welcome authoritative lexicographical correction on this.

    • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
      June 26, 2017 - 7:19 am | Permalink


      Yes a slur, but Mr. Fraser used it with purpose.


    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      June 30, 2017 - 4:57 am | Permalink

      When a speaker at a rally in Manchester recently opened his address to the crowd with ‘Greetings, infidels!’ the whole crowd cheered. It shows how a name that is meant to be derogatory initially can become an attractive label.

  5. June 25, 2017 - 2:01 pm | Permalink

    It’s always great to read a Prof. Fraser article. We need more people standing up for WASP culture in America. We White Anglo-Saxon Protestants – the founding people of America – have become the scapegoats for the both anti-white left as well as many on the so-called “right” who spend more time attacking us than they do attacking anti-whites.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      June 30, 2017 - 4:54 am | Permalink

      Hipster Racist – after a civil war the two groups might split up – one on one side and the other on the other side. Then the anti-white lot could self-destruct in their own half. But you would need a high wall to keep them out.

  6. HK Wills's Gravatar HK Wills
    June 25, 2017 - 5:36 pm | Permalink

    “feminists and Jews (the categories overlap to a remarkable degree) led a multi-pronged campaign to subvert traditional, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant marriages and families.”

    Yes indeed. They overlap to conspicuous extent, reminiscent of the Jewish role in altering the nation’s immigration policy, and Jewish overrepresentation in the communist hierarchy of the Soviet Union. As I have posted before nearly all the leading lights of feminism have been Jewish women:

    1. Betty Freidan
    2. Gloria Steinem
    3. Susan Brownmiller
    4. Erica Jong
    5. Noemi Wolf
    6. Letty Cotton Pogrebin
    7. Susan Faludi
    8. Shulemit Firestone
    9. Andrea Dworkin

    If the family is the “foundation of society” – and I have no reason to doubt it – it would be a crucial target for subversion by an enemy. This remains a rich vein for TOO exploration.

    “He argues that—absent legally-enforced matrimonial covenants—women are no more monogamous than men.”

    I think this idea probably conflicts with the investment theory of reproduction. Females bear a relatively greater cost than males in promiscuity. Evolution would select for more sexually parsimonious females. However there are species with highly promiscuous females. It hinges on the ability of females to conceal the cuckholded status of their mates from them.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      June 26, 2017 - 6:07 am | Permalink

      Andrea Dworkin waged a courageous battle against powerful porn merchants, Jewish and non-Jewish. She was fat and ugly, so this may have been a subconscious motivation, rather than a conscious desire to install the Elders of Zion upon Christendom.

      Many Jews of all genders have a desire to change the cultural paradigms of the societies in which they find themselves, but a few Jewish women who have opposed the “feminist” assault on the family unit. Incidentally, an Orthodox Jewish private school in north London, despite “good subject knowledge and high-quality classroom resources”, has been failed by British Government inspectors and can face closure, because pupils were not taught about “the protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010…particularly those relating to gender-reassignment” (Daily Telegraph, July 26). On the other, look at the article and books cited in “Feminism”, The Jewish Virtual Library online.

      A driving factor in 20th-century “feminism” has been lesbian proclivity; “Sappho is a Right-On Woman”. Like the hair of Medusa, the “movement” has split into many varieties, often contradictory (e.g. over “sex work”) – but “that’s wimmin for yer”. Camille Paglia and Fay Weldon are now as interesting to read as Phyllis Schlafly or Katherine Young.

      Whatever else, men and women across the white world need to produce more healthy and productive children, and to raise them together. A good example of the happy home might be the Anglo-Saxon farmstead family gathering rather than (say) a Seinfeld Seder.

      • June 26, 2017 - 8:58 am | Permalink

        There have always been White women who are considered “feminist” that have not engaged in the sort of cultural Marxist subversion that Jewish feminists have. Dworkin’s anti-porn crusades would have been far more powerful if she had acknowledged the Jewish role in pornography. She appears to have, instead, minimized the Jewish role to simply make it a men vs. women issue. This is usually the case for “reactionary” Jews, they merely work to point to red herrings with the effect of taking the focus off of Jewish subversion (Ayn Rand another typical example.)

        Jews who are not anti-White could prove their sincerity by working within the Jewish community to push back against Jewish anti-whiteness. It’s hard to take seriously Jews who instead infiltrate White movements and communities to shift the blame from Jews to “liberalism” or “feminism” or “male sexism.” It’s simply another example of Jewish activism, “tikkum olam,” “fixing” White people (who didn’t asked to be “fixed” by Jews.)

        What are White people supposed to think when a Jew like Dworkin tells White men and women that the problem with pornography isn’t the Jews promoting it, but instead the problem is that men (i.e., White men) are just naturally bad, evil, sexist, etc?

        Even those who don’t agree with any sort of feminism at all can see that “White Women Feminism” doesn’t have the subversive element of Jewish feminism:


        Perhaps the problem isn’t the feminism as much as it is the Jew-ism.

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          June 27, 2017 - 3:49 am | Permalink

          @ Hipster Racist

          I am happy to qualify my comment on Ms Dworkin, especially after reading “Take No Prisoners”, an in-depth study of her books & personality by the Jewish Linda Grant, in “The Guardian”, May 13, 2000, online, recommended to TOO analysts of the neurotic mindset.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      June 28, 2017 - 7:54 am | Permalink

      The list of Jewish Feminists is considerably longer :


      Talk about tiqqun olam !

  7. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    June 26, 2017 - 7:32 pm | Permalink

    OK so no fault divorce is a problem. Go around it. Make a new marriage license. It should cost more say $500 to $1000. It should be based on the early marriage laws. In it unless a Man is defective and shows fault then in divorce the kids go with the primary economic bread maker. Remove it from the family courts which will constantly distort the process and finally give it a good name like the Diamond marriage or Platinum marriage. Leave the standard marriage contracts alone. You want a cheap no-fault marriage you can have it. Which type marriage do you think Women will choose? The Feminist will howl like wounded banshees but refuse to change one thing about it as anyone can choose what they want.

  8. ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
    June 27, 2017 - 10:18 am | Permalink

    The Third Reich had many innovative solutions. I wonder how they handled marriage and divorce. Any take on this?

    • June 27, 2017 - 10:50 am | Permalink

      Ex S African

      The Nazis encouraged marriage, children and non working wives so as to provide jobs for married men. But they subverted marriage by encouraging even more illegitimate children of couples deemed to have desirable genetics.

      Since Germany was about 45 percent catholic at the time, I doubt many catholics indulged in the breeding vacations.

      • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
        June 27, 2017 - 9:33 pm | Permalink

        Do you perhaps have references by time witnesses, for instance on the same level of research as done by David Irving? I know that that period of history is a minefield of deception and anti-German propaganda.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      June 30, 2017 - 12:50 pm | Permalink

      @ ex South African

      The Third Reich is useful because we can assess the pros and cons of its policies regarding sex, marriage and children.

      The Soviet Union is useful because we can assess the damage done by its early “sexual liberation” policies and how they had to be abandoned in large degree.

      Hitler said that it was a priority to end the “mammonization of the sexual instinct” and the spread of venereal disease.

      For an ideologically driven, but usefully annotated, attack on the Stalinist attempt to strengthen marriage and the chaotic illegitimacy rate, see e.g. Dan Healey’s online essay “Bolshevik Medicine…”

      The international communist idea has been to combine free “love” with state “care” of any human offspring that survive abortions. In the decadent west the extermination of healthy and viable born or partially born babies is now their mothers’ (in)human right. “American Renaissance” has just printed a demand that WHITE babies should be the anti-racist priority of abortion abattoirs.

  9. Gbon's Gravatar Gbon
    June 27, 2017 - 10:41 am | Permalink

    The most superficial reading of the history of the White European peoples reveals that divorce was first legalized by 2 anglo Saxons, Henry Tudor and Thomas Cromwell in the anglo saxon country of England 480 years ago in 1533.

    BTW DNA samples from thousands of English people has revealed that the people of England are the descendants of the peoples who lived in England thousands of years before the anglo saxon invasion.

    The protestant churches and protestant countries were the ones that legalized divorce. Italy a catholic nation only legalized divorced recently.

    Too much reading of Ivanhoe and Robin Hood.

  10. JadeL's Gravatar JadeL
    June 27, 2017 - 11:12 am | Permalink

    No-fault divorce did not originate with Ashkenazi Jews.

    In the 1640s, John Milton–White, European, and a devout Christian, albeit an Arian one–advocated policies that went beyond even no fault divorce as he wished to leave divorce entirely in the hands of the “master of the family,” bypassing the courts. He drew much of his inspiration from the writings of the jurist John Selden, who was also a Christian, at least by cultural background.

    Milton misrepresented Jewish teachings on divorce, ignoring the dowry, which a husband paid to the wife only in the event of a divorce, which provided a strong financial incentive not to divorce, and the bill of divorce, which became so complex that in most cases it required a paid scribe to draw up the bill. Selden certainly knew these facts, as he wrote about them in Uxor Hebraica. Milton probably knew these facts, if not when he wrote a 1645 divorce tract then at least by the time he wrote “On CHristian Doctrine,” yet he chose to ignore them.

    Thus, two highly intellectual and prominent white males advocated a system of divorce that was far more liberal than anything promoted by normative Judaism at the time.

    I would also note that, in Florida at least, no-fault divorce was instituted by a mostly all-male legislature in the 1970s, one that was not noticeably sympathetic to women’s interests.

    I tend to question the statistic about women initiating divorce 3/4 of the time. It has been my observation that both parties want the divorce but the woman files to spare herself the humiliation of being “dumped” and because the man wants to avoid looking like a cad.

    • Gbon's Gravatar Gbon
      June 27, 2017 - 3:45 pm | Permalink

      If Milton was an Arian then he was not really a Christian. What Catholics deem the Arian heresy is the idea that Jesus is, was not really God. John Calvin revived the idea when he proclaimed that ” There is but one God, the God of Israel”. The Pilgrims, like Milton and Calvin were also not Christians in that they also denied that Jesus was God. Why do you think it was forbidden to celebrate the birth and resurrection of Jesus, the founder of Christianity in Calvin’s Switzerland, Knox’s Scotland, Oliver Cromwell’s England and the Arian Puritan colonies and states? It’s because they did not believe Jesus, the founder of Christianity was, is God?

      Forget about all the endless theological schools. Christians believe Jesus was is God. Non Christians don’t believe Jesus was is God. Like the Bon Christian John Calvin,, they believe ” There is but one God, the God of Israel”

  11. Poupon Marx's Gravatar Poupon Marx
    June 27, 2017 - 11:37 am | Permalink

    *Sigh* It seems as if our problems as Caucasians are endless and the solutions as well. So many prescriptions, remedies, and cures. Makes my head ache.

    Why don’t we GROUP a lot of these-if not most-and prescribe the following: restructure, restart, restore, and reinvigorate our Western Civilization, Inc., et al. to the way it was at the end of the 19th Century. White everything was paramount, worked well, and we were at our apogee.

    Large families. Necessary to take care of individuals, especially in old age. Bring back the Nuclear Family. The Human Genome will slow its dissolution and fraying due to more varied genes put into genotypes; more roles of the dice produce more chances of winning.

    Liberal use of the death penalty. Cockroaches never change. Dead mice and rats are a sure sign that colonizers need to move on. I love my cats.

    Reduction, radically, of the State. “Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone.”
    ― Frédéric Bastiat
    “State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.”
    -Fredrich Nietzsche
    The State is the weapon that the Babylonian Talmudic Beast wields against us, directly and vicariously.

    “Individuality within Diversity”. That’s who we were. We were not afraid to strike out on our own, to counter the mundane and dull edged. Public manners, etiquette, and the positives were correlated with “Godliness”. This was the period before The Kazars wounded us morbidly with WWI and the evil acts of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (via the establishment of the Federal Reserve). It would have been several magnitudes easier to have denounced the (((Destructors))) then, flushing them out by exposition and evidence.

    This was before the tidal wave of Easter European Yiddish Communist immigration and the Wrong Germans and Austrians. Many ethnic Germanics were aiders, abetters, and collaborators with the Jewish infiltration and infection.

    Child rearing practices. Need I elaborate? The streets of ALL cities of Western Civilization were safe to walk in the middle of the night.

    Yes, the Past was better than the Present, and will be better than any Future I can foresee for decades.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      June 30, 2017 - 4:48 am | Permalink

      Poupon Marx – the ‘natural way’ ie when natural selection applied, was for the like minded – in this case all those who agree with your sentiments above – let us call them ‘higher’ and the others ‘lower’ – the natural process in the past was for the higher ones to congregate together and eventually leave the main group and emigrate. Or, for them to stay and the lower types to go if the higher ones got fed up with the rape, plunder, and criminality of the lower types (left-wing traits, although often orchestrated by the left and approved of by them whilst not doing the acts themselves).

      This is natural selection in action. But today, where would the like minded go? Wherever the white identity lot went, the left would hound them and seek to destroy them just like they destroyed Rhodesia and then S.Africa. For example, Poland has closed their borders to 3rd world invasion, and the EU is ordering them to open their border.

      However, there is some segregation in American states going on. But nothing like enough to make much difference. This is because once societies organise into sizes of millions, natural selection cannot operate, unless it escalates to civil war.

      So we are doomed in the West to carry 15% of people with left-wing genes who tirelessly devote their lives to our own destruction, and who have been highly favoured by certain factors that favour them today, which did not apply when we were poor and had no TV or a wealthy state. We are doomed to be brought down by these 15% enemy within with their bad genes of hate, until such time as factors change again and they are no longer favoured. These factors include: (1) real news and opinion breaking through thanks to the internet after generations of biased media and schools controlling the narrative (2) economic collapse in the West generally as is happening in S.Africa (3) civil war in the West eg with Islam, and the people observing the left are on the side of Islam (4) massive world conflict, probably involving muslims.

  12. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    June 28, 2017 - 8:39 am | Permalink

    Perhaps we should ardently confront feminism’s weakest spot – its males (the hipsters, hennetasters and thralls).

  13. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    June 29, 2017 - 3:58 am | Permalink

    “No-fault divorce is a cultural artefact. ”
    No more a cultural artefact than the strict laws about marriage in the first place, backed by the church and state. What business is it of the state to ‘bind a man and woman until death do us part’. This is no business of the state. This is intrusive into people’s private lives and none of their business.

    Marriage is a deal made, as Kevin MacDonald describes in one of his youtube videos, whereby instead of the men jostling with each other and killing each other so that the top dogs can have several women each and the bottom dogs get nothing, instead of this, all the men get one each and peace ensues.

    This developed as before that all the fighting led to a culling of the men, but once man settled to peaceful farming communities and became less warlike, there were not enough women to go round unless the men had one each.

    In the more primitive model where there was more fighting, there was intense natural selection, as the top warrior could sire dozens of children. If the top warrior man liked blond women with fair skin, this would lead to a RAPID spread of this feature in the population, as a small proportion of the men produced the majority of the next generation.

    In the newer model where the fighting stopped, so too did natural selection virtually end. From then on, the population just took its hand of cards (ie gene pool) that existed at the moment the society settled down and stopped fighting. They stopped fighting because once you can plough and control the land fighting does not give such great rewards compared with the rewards you get from controlling the land. Before then fighting did give great rewards – the other side’s women, or the control of that lake where you get a supply of fish all year round to the tribe that owned it. Once farming developed anyone could leave the lake where all the fighting took place and make their own food by planting crops and keeping animals.

    So marriage is just society’s way of formalising the agreement of one each. It is better for the stability of the group as a whole. It has great advantages in terms of reducing conflict caused by infidelity and partner changing. But it is not intrinsically moral – it is just a strategy adopted by society to reduce conflict. And there is a great penalty to pay. The penalty is as follows:
    1) Individuals locked into unhappy marriages for life – you cannot escape your sentence
    2) If EITHER partner does not want children, in modern society this can, if that partner is dominant, it means that they remain childless. In other words, one of them stops both of them having children. This leads to falling birthrates in the West. A more flexible attitude (easy divorce) allows a change of partners so the ones who do not want children can pair up instead of selfishly preventing their first partner from having children.

    A hundred years ago not wanting children was no problem – there was no contraception and children happened anyway. Today who would dare tell any woman who did not want children that she must have them? It does not matter in gene pool terms if these women who do not want children do not have them – in fact it removes these bad genes from the gene pool – but what matters is that tighter divorce laws also LOCK IN a man to such a woman FOR LIFE and she stops him having children also. In many cases these men are the alpha ones who have married a high flying professional woman, so these women stop these successful men with good genes from having children.

    So this ‘deal’ or ‘pact’ called marriage is only ‘fair’ if part of the deal is that children will ensue. At least your life is fullfilled in that respect even if the marriage is unhappy. The pact of marriage is no longer appropriate as an institution to be valued when either partner can put a block on children ensuing from it. It then serves to make the birth rate fall, and it serves to stop men/women passing on their genes if they partner up with someone with genes for not wanting children. It therefore loses its status as ‘virtuous’ and instead becomes ‘harmful’. It was only virtuous (a benefit to society) when those who did not want children still had to have them. It is a source of harm to society when it serves to facilitate the weakening of the Western gene pool (professional women marry successful men and stop them passing on their high quality genes by delaying motherhood until it is too late) and thus causing the shrinking of the population, and the prevention of moral males/females with good genes from passing them on due to their strong moral code preventing them from changing partners due to their respect for marriage. So whilst the moral and successful (in terms of profession) have fewer children, meanwhile the underclass breeds intensly.

    • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
      June 29, 2017 - 1:06 pm | Permalink

      So marriage is just society’s way of formalising the agreement of one each. It is better for the stability of the group as a whole. It has great advantages in terms of reducing conflict caused by infidelity and partner changing.

      We have not done away with polygamy. It still exists in the widespread practices of serial marriage and promiscuity among the unmarried. One man-many women; one woman-many men – it’s still here. One colossal democratic harem.

      In many cases these men are the alpha ones who have married a high flying professional woman, so these women stop these successful men with good genes from having children

      Time for LOLs! If the socalled alpha males really were alpha, they’d have enough brains to discuss reproduction matters before marriage to that high-earning woman they want so bad simply because they (the males) nowadays want a woman to bring in income so the two of them can have a nice comfy, acquisitive life.

      • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
        June 30, 2017 - 4:16 am | Permalink

        Barking Mad – good point about polygamy via multiple partners. The single mothers you refer to are generally married to the state, and if you watch any TV documentary that features them and their partners, you have to marvel at how these women chose the opposite of alpha males – they choose drugged up non-provider losers for fathers whose only talent is shop-lifting and consuming large quantities of drugs and alcohol. It is as if they perversely choose the worst genes to father their children. An example of natural selection going wrong and taking the gene pool down.
        These types cause the statistics that show the bad effects on children of single mothers – they skew the figures. There are other single parents who bring up stable and well adjusted children. It is better for a child to be born into a single parent family where the parent includes other adults being part of the child’s life as parent substitutes, this is better for the child than to be born into a two parent family in some isolated house where there is conflict. The ‘natural way’ is for all children to be surrounded by a network of relations, so if a parent dies (as was common) there were already many substitute parents to take over the role. The unnatural state where we all live away from kin has only happened in the last 100 years in the West.

        You might well LOL but in matters of the heart men are very foolish, as are women. There is a very sought after school near me, and the parents of the children who go there tend to have older parents who are professional and wealthy enough to live in this sought after catchment area, and also have children clever/conscientious enough to pass the entrance exam. This suggests that in these families (professional high earners and high achievers) with good genes include mothers who have delayed having children until they are older. This means they have fewer children and there are many others like them who can no longer have them as the mother is past her child-bearing years by the time she realises that the promotion at work is not the most important thing in the word after all.

        So these professional men marry professional women, who then ‘assert their right’ to devote their life not to having and raising children, but rather to their own careers, and to the accumulation of wealth, even though their husband is bringing in far more than they will ever need. These selfish women then make their husbands have fewer/no children. Such bad genes in the past were not eliminated by nat selection as even when present in women the women still had to have children. Now they have a choice to declare if they want that their husband will remain childless even if he does not want to. It is easier said than done to divorce in these cases.

        We live in artificial times where many genes are being manifest that in the past would have been irrelevant. The gene for not wanting children in the past was not relevant as there was no choice – you had them anyway. Now with choice this perverted gene has manifest itself. Therefore now that marriage incorporates the right of one partner to declare that both they and the other partner will remain childless, now that this is part of marriage, marriage is no longer to be held as something so virtuous – it is helping to lock us into our own destruction.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        June 30, 2017 - 12:51 pm | Permalink

        If the so-called alpha males really were alpha, they’d have enough brains to discuss reproduction matters before marriage …

        [giggle] Looks to me as if these alphas are actually alpha sub-1s.

        Thank you for demonstrating the preferability of commonsensical observation to endless dorm-room theorizing, dear B.

        • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
          June 30, 2017 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

          Gratias tibi ago. [Am I remembering this correctly?] The comments here would be short and concise if we all had to make them in Latin, don’t you think.

          I don’t even know what an “alpha sub-1” is.

          Anyway, if Alpha is best (i.e., Alpha male) because it is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, then the Beta male, being just one rung beneath the Alphas, is therefore not a suitable way to describe a weak male. Jes’ sayin’. :)

  14. Old Ez's Gravatar Old Ez
    June 29, 2017 - 5:45 am | Permalink

    “particularly as practiced among white Anglo-Saxon Protestants”

    Yes, because Catholics had the good sense to make divorce a sin and thus they were largely immune from the attack. Why Protestants embrace the Jewish value of divorce I’ll never understand. Of course historically it was all about politics and $$$, as just about all Protestantism turns out to be.

  15. David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
    June 30, 2017 - 3:01 pm | Permalink

    A few comments:

    The crisis in male-female relations, personal and social, arises largely from the fact that gender difference and sexual actions are today seen consciously as two-dimensional, whereas the underlying biological dynamics remain related to the three-dimensional requirements of reproduction and child protection.

    Although his research has been challenged in some areas, the social scientist J. D. Unwin made a strong historical case that sexual restraint and monogamy were closely associated with cultural achievement. Steven Goldberg presented evidence that patriarchy was the normal order of affairs in successful societies of all kinds. Their books are little known and difficult to obtain.

    Muslim “theorists” have defended polygamy on the grounds that men can impregnate many women but women can only conceive one at a time. Of course, an arrangement whereby up to four women are exclusively subject to one man in a strict marriage set-up must restrict the availability of females, with adverse social implications. The Muslim marriage system probably has a greater appeal for the African male than Christian monogamy.

    Despite her oddity in some respects, Nesta Webster hit a nail on the head in “World Revolution” nearly a hundred years ago, when she identified the five aims of a long-term “conspiracy against civilization” as the abolition of monarchy, of private property inheritance, of patriotism, of religion, and of the FAMILY, i.e. of marriage and sexual morality, plus the communal “education” of children. Si requiris monumentum circumspice.

Comments are closed.