The Sexual is Political (And Profitable)

“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.”[1] 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.”[2] 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?”[3]

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.

[1] 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

[2] D. Granberg, “The Abortion Activists,” International Family Planning Perspectives, 1981 Jul-Aug;13(4):157-63.

[3] F. Rosenbaum, Cosmopolitans: A Social and Cultural History of the Jews of San Francisco (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), p.155.

18 replies
  1. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    Sterile worker castes are essential to eusocial metaorganisms. Reproductive castes create them through parasitic castration during development. The penultimate eusociality is the queen: A mother that parasitically castrates her own offspring. This is the essential insight of the highly controversial paper “The Evolution of Eusociality” by Martin A. Nowak, Corina E. Tarita and Edward O. Wilson. The ultimate eusociality is a metaorganism in which the sterile workers are clones produced by specializing mitosis and the reproductive caste is gametes produced by meiosis — back where sex started from.

    “Straight” sex is the heart and soul of organic individualism — not the deracinated pseudo-individualism of Cultural Marxism. Straight sex is the heart and soul of European identity — the heir apparent of the 600 million year Cambrian explosion of speciation arising from male intrasexual selection’s limitation of panmixia. Group conflict, not arising from individual male intrasexual selection, is the path to the eusocial abyss tempting primate line ever since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor first abused the greater cognitive capacity of compact primate neurons to form hierarchical gangs for unfair advantage over individual males. It is in the individual mutant male that evolution advances a species and, indeed, which is the origin of species.

    Europeans instaurated that culture of individual integrity, more so than any other race, by respecting the 600 million year heterosexual tradition embodied in individual male combat as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing.

    Ignore this, or worse, permit Jewish travesty of it as evidenced in Freud and Hollywood’s “mano-a-mano” climactic scenes, at the peril not only of Europeans, the light unto the races, but the very biosphere.

    It is that serious.

  2. Charles Staples
    Charles Staples says:

    Thank you for this most interesting analysis and for the splendid phrase, ‘the Culture of Sterility’.

  3. Grey Liddell
    Grey Liddell says:

    What Gertrude Stein said to Ernest Hemingway about male homosexuals.

    “You know nothing about any of this, really, Hemingway,” she said. “You’ve met known criminals and sick people and vicious people. The main thing is that the act male homosexuals commit is ugly and repugnant and afterwards they are disgusted with themselves. They drink and take drugs, to palliate this, but they are disgusted with the act and they are always changing partners and cannot be really happy.”
    from here:

  4. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    “In terms of flesh, without a penis in the vagina nought else exists — even inversion.”

    Hasn’t Bowden heard of unnatural reproductive techniques (“Assisted Reproductive Technology”)? The ones which, I suspect, even the most rabidly traditionalist prowhite crusader would not reject? You know, better living through white man’s science so of course it’s okay.

    #1 In vitro fertilization
    #2 Intrauterine insemination
    #3 Gamete intrafallopian transfer
    #4 Intracytoplasmic sperm injection

    Widespread infertility and especially the enthusiastic use of these barbarities to make people feel normal (“my little miracle baby!”) is as ominous a sign of our degenerated state as widespread homosexuality or transsexualism. Maybe worse. Seems if someone wants something keenly enough, the justifications will be endless. Yes, it does matter how we got here – efforts to separate the trinity of biologically normal fertilization, normal birth and normal child rearing will logically lead to violations elsewhere. And that’s where we are today.

    Except for this blatant omission, this is a hell of an article. That article on voluntary cannibalism in Germany was priceless.

  5. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    A great article, succinct and penetrating. It reminded my of E. Michael Jones’ foray into the same subject in his book, “Libido Dominandi.” He observed, “Sexual liberation means political control.” So much of the effort to undermine the moral basis of society seems to come from Jewish intellectuals. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founding member of NARAL, former abortionist and eventually a Catholic convert, wrote that NARAL leadership was Jewish and set up the Catholic Church as a foil to achieve legalization of abortion by inciting latent anti-Catholic sentiment among Protestant Americans. Michael Hoffman, revisionist historian, wrote in his book “Judaism Discovered” that abortion has rabbinical support based on the texts of the Talmud and the philosopher Maimonides. An unborn baby can be considered a “rodef,” a pursuer, and therefore killed.
    I would love to see a Straight Pride Parade, even though I am no a fan of parades in general. I would also like to see a Second Amendment Parade, where all the participants bring their firearms or other weapons.

  6. Tom
    Tom says:

    If all the Left wanted was for the state to allow the monetization of sexual favors, I don’t believe this instance of negative state liberalism would do much harm to civil society. Leftists champion the idea of the negative state when it comes to “consensual activities” but more often than not they are positive state authoritarians when it comes to forcing private civil society associations upon the mass of normal people who do not wish to have any dealings with freaks and perverts. This is the real danger. Since the time of the New Deal and the so-called “civil rights” movement, the state has continued to gobble up more and more control of private civility such that once-historically unconstitutional, but now “legal”, legislation intrudes upon the freedom of association of citizens. In my opinion, the only way to remedy the democratic tyranny prevailing over civil society today is to try and launch a movement which takes government completely out of the private sector except in instances where the life, liberty, and property of individuals are threatened. Anti-discrimination laws (themselves discriminatory) and the notion of legislated protected groups prevent the natural functioning of civil relations. Imagine if the state lacked the power to force businesses to hire in a particular manner, or to build bathrooms catering to delusional microscopic minorities. Basically, the entire leftist project could be told to go pound tar. Leftism is subjective idiocy outside the bounds of Natural Law and human biology. It is a cancer that can only sustain itself by the unregulated power of the state. Weaken the state and leftism will wither away.

  7. Prof. Woland
    Prof. Woland says:

    The last thing the left needs is for Men to organize into a modern effective well financed lobby. While seemingly fair and equal (who could possibly object?), it would simultaneously create a number of problems each of which could be very damaging or fatal to how the left operates. The touchiness or mocking nonchalance that pervades the left’s attitude on this belies how threatening it would be and how easy it would be to pull off. Most of the precursory elements for a grass-tops movement are already in place with the only thing lacking being money; something which could be quickly interjected if and when the will arises.

    The first problem is that it would be an obvious counterbalance to the feminism and the LGBT crowd. Much of their success can be attributed to the fact that they organized and showed up while the other side did not and as a consequence, they get things like preferential hiring through affirmative action, special police protection from hate crimes legislation and the VAWA, an advantage in marriage-divorce-custody, etc. This isn’t just about sexual libertarianism. Most Americans don’t care to much what consenting adults do in private, but as we know that is the least of it.

    The second problem the left would face is that Men’s rights would revolve around their ability to work and provide. If men reasserted control over their resources it would starve the left. In spite of all the big talk about how women can do everything men can, the reality is that men still probably pay about 75% of the taxes, 94-96% of the alimony, the bulk of the child support, most of the health care funding, etc. The fact that we don’t really know the amounts is testament to how little influence men are accorded. It is not an accident that women grabbed abortion as their go to issue because it was the one area that they had the most control and could leverage. Men’s ability to generate wealth is theirs and they have completely squandered it up till now in the political battle of the sexes.

    Another big problem for the left would be that men in-grouping would create a sort of an ‘autoimmune’ response by the left. There is no particular reason why an organized men’s movement would have to be on the right other than that women are natural socialists due to their need to scrape money from men. This would bring about a political realignment that would force other constituent groups on the left to go overtly on the attack thereby revealing their positions which they would rather not do. The left is a coalition of minority groups none of whom which are thrilled about straight men asserting their rights.

    Which brings us to the fourth major problem for the left which is that if straight men can organize, why can’t whites do it? Men and whites are the two remaining identity groups left that have not effectively formed any sort of institutional advocacy. That has not only hurt people like me in the increasingly fierce multicultural competition we now face but it has allowed the left to radicalize because they have not had to face any consequences due to the lack of competition or opposition. Building a strong Men’s rights movement will pave the way for whites to do the same.

    All this would take is a few hundred million to a billion dollars. While that sounds like a lot, but that is maybe $10 from every adult male in America. Even though this is long overdue, don’t think there are not people who would do anything to keep this from ever happening.

    • James Bowery
      James Bowery says:

      “The last thing the left needs is for Men to organize into a modern effective well financed lobby.”

      See “The Establishment and Maintenance of Socially Imposed Monogamy in Western Europe” by Kevin MacDonald.

      The problem with a coalition of men — indeed the problem with civilization — is any social hierarchy among men tends to degenerate into polygyny even if, for no other reason than female hypergamy, as we see in the present day de facto polygyny (mendaciously called “serial monogamy”).

      See my 1992 essay, “Race, Gender and the Frontier”, part 1 and part 2.

      I subsequently realized that containing this failure mode of civilization is likely futile so long as those in authority have gangs under their control with which to suppress challenges from individual men deprived of quality mates. Since this such hierarchy is virtually the sine qua non of “civilization” the prudent thing to do is build such challenges into the very structure of civilization. If that means we must sacrifice many if not most of the gracious things of civilization, then so be it.

      Obviously, the primary function of civilization is the ability to mobilize a military against the incursions of gangs. If you lose sight of this fact, you are, in essence, creating a dysgenic culture that sacrifices blood — the genetic quality of your people — for mammon worship, and you will be destroying not only the gracious things of civilization, but your very people’s genetic constitution.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      The problems are a) Whites are mostly too intimidated by calls of “racism” to organize themselves into an interest group (though of course we should have done so long ago; this was immeasurably retarded by the constant usage of Nazi imagery among White advocates), and b) White men individually are viscerally put off by the entire culture of protesting, and whining about “men’s rights” too much signals “loser” to too many other (especially older and established) White men. I recognized this as far back as the mid-80s, when I was still in my 20s. White men are way too individualistic for their own collective (and thus ultimately individual) good. Too many of us still instinctively regard ourselves as “above” protesting for our rights, less ethically (though White liberal men feel this way), than out of a sense that only losers have to do so. The implicit idea is that a White man should be able to “make it” on his own. We are inherently NOT a race of whiners (the Jews are, which has been a huge source of their success, along with high verbal IQ, low morals, and high ethnocentrism and clannishness).

      The outcome you want is for normal White men en masse to accept that they are under [mostly] non-violent racial, gender and ethnocultural attack, and that we are not impervious to negative social, economic, familial, and professional effects from this 50 year and counting Culture War – and then to organize to resist our dispossession. The best way to achieve this is by forming organizations supporting Trumpian America First national preservationism (I am a White nationalist myself, but most Whites themselves are simply not ready for that level of “red-pilling”). Patriotic organizations. Such organizations are IMPLICITLY pro-White because the USA was founded, settled and built by Whites, and the whole #MAGA idea and agenda is heavily nostalgic. Our enemies understand this, which is why they kept asserting that “MAGA” really meant “Make America White Again” (which is actually the truth, though too few Whites, the most ethical race, and thus the most easily morally intimidated one, can bring themselves to admit this). In fact, to MAGA we must actually MAWA or at least stop making it less demographically and culturally White/Western/traditionalist.

      The beautiful thing about MAGA is that hostility to it reveals the real character and motives of its enemies. Who can oppose defending America? Those who hate it (ie those who are racist against Whites). I believe vast numbers of Whites would like to network with and be a part of an organization which is pro-American, but would be scared to join one which is pro-White (esp when so many pro-Whites are neo-Nazis or otherwise unappealing or even genuinely unethical people). Nor is there ever likely to be a masculinist movement on a par with feminism due to the different modal psyches of men and women – esp White men (whom I regard, perhaps unscientifically, as the world’s supreme outliers). You can get White men to a gun rights rally because that reinforces their sense of personal masculinity.

      But men who want to protest as men set themselves up – in front of other White men – as losers who somehow couldn’t cut it in contemporary life (minority men don’t labor under the same presumption of inferiority because they have been indoctrinated, by themselves, Jews, and White progtard self-hating racial sycophants {the Paul Ryans, Beto O’Rourkes, George Bushes, Jeff Flakes, Gavin Newsoms, etc ad nauseam} into believing that “the deck is stacked against them”, and thus they see racial protesting as expressing personal strength, not failure in life).

      I think a lot of straight White men would like to organize – but NOT as “straight White men”. The best way to get them out there (beyond single issues, like gun or veteran’s rights) is to organize along patriotic (American preservationist) lines. “Rally for God, Family, Liberty, America” (which is essentially what a Trump rally actually is) sounds tough and respectable (to SWM heartland conservatives), and it will effectively attract SWM, esp in these morally as well as racially degenerate times. But “Rally for Oppressed Straight White Men”, even though we are in fact the one genuinely oppressed group in the USA, sounds (to the target White male audience) like a “Rally for Financial and Sexual Failures”, and it will not attract the numbers you want.

      Who wants to start the America First Coalition?

  8. Jud Jackson
    Jud Jackson says:

    I am reminded of Michael Levin’s “Why Homosexuality is abnormal” published in the philosophical journal “The Monist” in 1985, I believe. Levin calls homosexuality a misuse of bodily organs, and claims that all our bodily organs have a normal purpose or function. He makes an analogy to a man who pulls all of the teeth out of his mouth and strings them up on a necklace which he then wears. This man is clearly misusing his teeth as the proper purpose or function of the teeth is to chew food. Similarly, a man who inserts his penis in another man’s anus is misusing his penis. The proper function of the erect penis is to insert semen into the female vagina.

    • Flossie
      Flossie says:

      Not to mention the fact that the last few inches of the digestive tract weren’t designed for the particular rigors of sexual intercourse. Homosexual men are subject to a plethora of pesky problems and diseases as a result, from AIDS to fecal incontinence and everything in between.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        None of which prevented JUNIOR MISS [ Vogue ? ] from instructing young girls how to prepare for anal sex, to satisfy their curiosity, with exceedingly grotesque, [ some would say Jewish ] visual detail. Of course also ” educational ” for young men of a sort, who should not be afraid of experimentation.

        One incensed mother collected funds, bought up all locally available copies of this filth edition, and publicly burned them.

    • Andy
      Andy says:

      Yes, it goes against the grain of how our bodies work and relate to each other in quite literally fruitful ways. I’ve always thought that the typical acts associated with homosexuality were highly problematic, and a kind of triumph of sensuality over good sense.

      I’ll have to pull up Levin’s article. Thank you for that..

  9. Sbaker
    Sbaker says:

    Make no mistake, no Jewish lawyer ever does anything for anyone that isn’t directly connected with making more money. These new “laws” were all enacted to put money in Gottbucks pockets and the pockets of other lawyers and judges.

  10. Hugo Acosta
    Hugo Acosta says:

    Make Prostitution legal in New York is a big mistake. I think the objective is tax the pimps with Cadillacs and his girls profits. But in the end, pimps want to be donors for Democratic candidates and laundering more money.

Comments are closed.