“Freud envisages any social order larger than that between sexual partners as founded on a common, enforced, unrecognised renunciation of sexual life. Marcuse wishes to envisage a possible social order in which human relationships are widely informed by that libidinal release and gratification which, according to Freud, would spell the destruction of any social order.”
Alasdair MacIntyre, Marcuse, 1970.
The most comprehensive prostitution decriminalization effort ever initiated in the United States has commenced in New York, led by Richard N. Gottfried, the Jewish head of the State Assembly’s Health Committee. Gottfried is an ardent crusader for sexual ‘liberation’, having previously introduced the first same-sex marriage bill in the Assembly in 2003, acted as key sponsor for GENDA, the Gender Non-Discrimination Act which would “make discrimination based on gender identity illegal,” pioneered legislation compelling the trustees or sole trustee of every school district to establish policies and procedures regarding the treatment of ‘transgender or gender non-conforming students’, and introduced legislation requiring ‘sexuality education’ in schools. In fact, the only conservative position Gottfried has ever taken in his role as head of the Health Committee was when anti-vaccine Ultra-Orthodox Jews came under fire during a measles outbreak in New York back in May. As the New York Times noted, “Richard N. Gottfried, the Assembly’s longest serving member is usually a reliably liberal voice on all things related to health. (Mr. Gottfried, a Democrat from Manhattan, is the sponsor, for example, of the New York Health Act, which would establish a universal single-payer health plan in the state.) But on the issue of eliminating religious exemptions, Mr. Gottfried has withheld his support.” Since Jews benefited more than any other group from exemptions in this instance, Gottfried’s coercive measures relating to health and sexuality are apparently for the goyim only. Coming during ‘Pride Month,’ his advocacy for prostitution reinforced my belief that, in postmodernity, the sexual is political, indeed hyper-political, and I wanted to share some general thoughts on the subject.
Recent social media ranting about a proposed “straight pride march” are strongly indicative of the ways in which the sexual has become hyper-political. To summarize, a heavily ironic group of activists named Super Happy Fun America planned a Straight Pride parade in Boston in reaction to the city’s rejection of the group’s application to raise its “straight pride flag” at Boston’s City Hall earlier this spring. In a statement, the group announced: “We have decided to launch a campaign to educate the public, politicians, and civil servants about the straight community and the unique problems we face. We have determined that a parade would be the best way to promote our community and its diverse history, culture, and identity. We anticipate that the city will eventually choose to embrace tolerance and inclusivity.” This is clearly an ironic and humorous, and ultimately harmless, play with leftist tropes and catchphrases. But if the intention of Super Happy Fun America was to force the totalitarian nature of postmodern sexual politics to the surface, then they succeeded. The reaction to this boyish prank was quite remarkable. The city’s Jewish newspaper warned of ‘The Covert anti-Semitism of Straight Pride,’ while an astonishing number of major news sources (for example, see here, here, and here) warned that the Straight Pride organisers had links to the Alt-Lite and anti-Marxist groups, and were ‘racists’ and ‘anti-Semites.’
Satirizing Straight Pride
Setting aside the genuine right-wing political background of the Straight Pride organisers (Proud Boys, Resist Marxism etc.), the concept of a parade by the sexually normal was itself viewed as inherently political, and with some justification. Homosexuality, transgenderism, and a plurality of related deviances and delusions are now an integral and celebrated part of globalism and its philosophical underpinning. These modes of being, for lack of better terminology, are the biological representation of the anti-border, and their co-operation with contrived concepts of psychological and physical ‘fluidity’ are fully in keeping with globalism’s requirement for the fluidity of capital (both fiscal and human) and the breaking down of national differentiation.
To put it simply, once one accepts the idea that a man can become a woman just by thinking he is one, it is remarkably easy to be persuaded, for example, that England can become ‘other’ than the homogeneous home of the English. And interpretations of marriage can be made more ‘flexible,’ in precisely the same way that national identities and conceptions of citizenship can be made more ‘accommodating.’ Thus, we live in an age where a woman can have a penis, and a sub-Saharan African can be a Scotsman. In both cases, the rejection of ‘rigid’ identities and borders is the political-philosophical precondition for ‘progress,’ ambiguously defined as ‘liberation’ and heavily punctuated with debt-fuelled consumerism.
Just as these modes of being are perfectly suitable for the uses of global capital, so they are perfectly suited to the uses of Judeo-Marxism. For example, the homosexual, the transgendered, and others like them are, in the thinking of Herbert Marcuse, heroic escapees from the repressive sexual behaviour of the normal and reproductive: “Against a society which employs sexuality as a means for a useful end, the perversions uphold sexuality as an end in itself; they thus place themselves outside the domination of the performance principle and challenge its very foundations.” The psycho-biological indeterminacy of effeminate gender benders, and the rebellious teenager who volunteers her unborn child for summary dismemberment and evacuation from the womb, become, in Marcuse’s Judeo-Marxism, the heroic rejectors and opponents of the White family.
Any manifestation of organised ‘Straight Pride’ is thus an act of political opposition to the globalist championing of indeterminacy and a rejection of Marcuse’s celebration of the new heroes (in his words, the “whores, degenerates, and perverts” who “reified” the body) of postmodernity. In the new world-political context of Judeo-Globalism (international finance + cultural marxism), “straightness” is thus something that should never be celebrated or arouse pride because, like “whiteness,” it is the bland and oppressive manifestation of borders, boundaries, rules, and “the domination of the performance principle.” It is, in the Marxist lexicon, anti-liberation, and opposed to the “whores, degenerates, and perverts” who act now as the foot soldiers for social and political “freedom.”
As such, I was unsurprised at the tone and trajectory of most of the reported social media responses to news of the planned straight pride march, most of which portray the family and the sexually normal as bland, stale, or lacking in that elusive prime virtue of postmodernity — “vibrancy.” “The straight pride parade is just the checkout line at Costco,” remarked one user, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked: “What would folks march in? Socks w/ sandals on? Dad jeans?”
Much of this kind of sarcastic thinking is of course due to saturation of cultural space with homosexual/indeterminacy propaganda portraying sanitized versions (no AIDS, STDs, or suicide) of these “alternative lifestyles” as highly exciting and fashionable, and the gradual marginalization of sexually normal behavior (via the critique of masculinity in feminism) in the production, and subject matter, of art. The fact that Ocasio-Cortez felt compelled to mock her own normal sexual instincts (she has a boyfriend who presumably does not wear socks with sandals or dad jeans) is indicative of the fact that large numbers of normal people will virtue-signal for homosexuals and the transgendered in line with the propaganda flow. The elevation of the homosexual and the transgendered can of course only come about by distancing the masses from the fact that ultimately, only reproductive sex between a man and a woman is primal and essential. Jonathan Bowden put it best when he wrote in his classic argument against homosexuality:
Another fallacy needs to be confronted: and this must be the notion that family life, male-female bonding, the nuclear enclave, children, et cetera … are somehow negative, restrictive, reactionary, unalternative, ‘square’ or Bourgeois. Au contraire, the First Sexuality remains primal, chthonic, volcanic, and biologically productive. It erupts, like one of Norman Lowell’s abstracts, from fundamental fissures. In terms of flesh, without a penis in the vagina nought else exists — even inversion. Perhaps the best analysis has to be the masterwork which convened modern sexology. This was Count Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s work, Psychopathia Sexualis, that appeared in the eighteen seventies. It posited the notion that the Heterosexual or Straight world’s all that exists, and, by definition, every other tendency happens to be its penumbra, shadow, affectation or deliquescence. … A primal sexuality always embodies Heterosexuality. It alone relates to blood, genetics, racial causation and gender’s polarity. All culture springs from a child’s birth — it’s in accordance with Nature. A factor which necessitates the weakness of all alternatives: whether these are same-sex, infantilistic or paedophile, bi-polar, necrophile, coprophiliac, trans-gender or hermaphroditic, et cetera.
Only gross distortions of culture have brought about a situation in which Bowden’s listed malformed shadows of, and weak alternatives to, normal sexual instincts are celebrated above and beyond the primordial vehicle for blood, genetics, and race. Thus, the man who supports, broadens and extends his family tree, fulfilling the promise and demands of his ancient genetic heritage, is seen as less “vibrant” than the man who lives parasitically without any of these responsibilities in the shadow of the reproductive and makes a celebration of living hedonistically and dying without heirs. Or as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might frame it, when it comes to pure excitement and liberation, “Dad jeans” are really no match for the unlimited cultural opportunities afforded by a colourful flag and giant dildos.
Abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism are of course also attractive to Judeo-Globalism because they share another important quality. And it isn’t “vibrancy,” but rather sterility. The increasing proliferation and tolerance of all three phenomena in the culture of the West cannot be seen as separate and distinct from White demographic decline. This is not to say that demographic decline is directly or solely caused by abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism, but it is to say that these things contribute to and proliferate in the contemporary culture of sterility. One HuffPost propagandist has argued that “homosexuality be seen as providing a viable option to overpopulation,” asking that “the world’s nations come to encourage its practice and esteem its benefits. … It is, after all, the most harmonious way to control the population.” Since Jews have an interest in weakening the demographic, cultural, and political strength of White host populations, it should also come as no surprise that Jews are very prominent in promoting the culture of sterility. For example, in one 1980 study of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), it was found that “17% of NARAL members are Jewish, compared to almost no NRLC members and 2% for the general population.” Tikkun has announced that “Jews brought America to the tipping point on gay marriage.” And at least one university is running a course on “Jews and the transgender movement” in which it is noted that “several Jews have made significant contributions to transgender theory. Magnus Hirschfeld advocated for transgender rights in 1920’s Germany. Isaac Bashevis Singer’s short story Yentl the Yeshiva Boy about a girl who cross-dresses to study in Yeshiva is far more provocatively transgendered than the better known Oscar winning film Yentl made by Barbara Streisand in the 1980’s. Judith Butler has noted her early background in the study of Jewish ethics as a contributor to her fundamental re-imagination of gender as performance in her groundbreaking Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Interestingly, one of the pioneers of transgender legislation in America is a Jewish man who now calls himself Jennifer Levi. [See also Brenton Sanderson’s fascinating 2015 essay on Jews and transgenderism]
Jewish support for the culture of sterility now coincides catastrophically with developments in postmodern, post-industrial Western capitalism. Our post-industrial economies, increasingly floating on debt-fueled consumerism, no longer have clearly defined class dimensions, resulting, to borrow current language, in “non-binary” class relations and aspirations. As Daniel Bell observed in the 1980s in his The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, “One finds many children of upper-middle-class families joyfully embracing what they think is the “freedom” of working-class or black, lower-class lifestyles.” Today, the young and impressionable are joyfully embracing what they think is the “freedom” of the homosexual, the transgendered, and the promiscuous denizens of the abortion clinics (if not becoming one of their number, then supporting and celebrating them). Mass producers and mega-corporations, whose ability to sell products is often contingent on the illusion of novelty and aspiration, have adapted to the fact consumerism has dissolved traditional class structures by turning to the sale of identities (goth, gamer, sports fan, trans, homosexual, liberal etc.) and the illusion of freedom described above. They are catering to the desire of the consumers to be identified, as Bell notes, “not by their occupational base, but by their cultural tastes and life-styles.” An interesting aspect of the rush of major brands to endorse Pride Month is that most of the Pride-endorsing brands are not those traditionally associated with selling masculine aspirational products (e.g., cars, luxury watches, etc.) but instead those where the need for the illusion of novelty would be more acute, for example those involved in selling more generic or everyday products like potato chips (Doritos) and mouthwash (Listerine), or brands where identity is of more primary importance, for example social media corporations. Endorsing the heroes of postmodernity (Marcuse’s “whores, degenerates, and perverts”) is simply an easy and, for the most part, deeply cynical marketing gimmick, that nevertheless contributes to, and proliferates in, the culture of sterility.
This kind of acute, cynical capitalism is also associated with planned obsolescence, in which products are designed with an artificially limited useful life so that they become obsolete and must be replaced by new purchases, thus generating long-term sales volume. It is a system in which the concept of inheritance is anathema, since nothing is intended to survive even the life of one individual. Both prices and culture now dictate that the young even move away from ownership itself, renting almost everything in their lives. As the economic life of the West moves ever further away from ownership and inheritance (cash inheritance might persist, but cash is fluid), the West moves further away from belief in its ultimate inheritance — the genetic and geographic. A young person reduced to a childless, nomadic existence is unlikely to feel ownership of his nation, or to feel any kind of deep feeling with his fellow nomads. He comes to feel he is a mere tenant in his own land, possessing no intrinsic right to exclude other would-be tenants, no matter how alien and unpredictable. Planned obsolescence thus thrives on the culture of sterility since it designs nothing for heirs, and markets solely to the nomad in possession of nothing but cash and a need for a purchasable, but ultimately false and manufactured, identity.
Homosexuals, the transgendered, and abortion clinic harlots are the natural constituency for planned obsolescence, offering (bizarre exceptions aside) no heirs and caring only for enjoying the “freedom” of their stunted existence. The sexual is political, the political is economic, and the economic adapts itself to reflect the sexual.
All of which brings us back to Mr. Gottfried’s effort to regulate prostitution in New York, much like one would regulate the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. “Trying to stop sex work between consenting adults should not be the business of the criminal justice system,” he has said. “It has not worked for a couple of thousand years.” Gottfried’s logic appears to be that because laws against prostitution have not prevented prostitution from happening, they have failed and should therefore be dispensed with. One wonders, following this logic, whether it’s time to decriminalize murder, theft, fraud, etc. And the familiar trope of legitimacy arising from the presence of two “consenting adults” should really have died an embarrassed death the moment a homosexual consented to be killed, and his penis eaten, by an equally consenting cannibal. Of course, one suspects that Mr. Gottfried knows his arguments to be disingenuous, much as one suspects that Gottfried knows he is but the latest in a long line of his co-ethnics who have attempted to tamper with the sexual (and thus political) habits of his hosts. It was over a century ago, in San Francisco in 1911, that America experienced its first encounter with a Jewish health official advocating for legalized prostitution. In that instance, it was San Francisco Municipal Clinic’s Dr. Julius Rosenstirn who argued that criminalizing prostitution was “bound to fail” and asked, in that keening verbosity peculiar to Jews: “Can we legislate people to become deaf to the passionate call of sex? Do the laws stuff cotton in the ears of men and women as Ulysses put wax into the ears of his crew when his ship passed the isle of sweet singing sirens?”
Dr Rosenstirn and Mr Gottfried, as their almost identical statements suggest, are but birds of a feather. Both, I am sure, were/are well aware that the sexual is political, and that the legalization of prostitution, where sex is commodified and further distanced from reproduction, would be another weapon in the armory of the culture of sterility — a culture in which all is permitted so long as it restricts the existence of our people and denies a future for White children.
 H. Marcuse, ‘Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Enquiry into Freud,’ in J. Jackson (ed.) The Underground Reader: Sources in the Trans-Atlantic Counterculture (New York: Berghahn, 2015), p.193
 D. Granberg, “The Abortion Activists,” International Family Planning Perspectives, 1981 Jul-Aug;13(4):157-63.
 F. Rosenbaum, Cosmopolitans: A Social and Cultural History of the Jews of San Francisco (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), p.155.