Women’s Workplace Equality Under Threat—Hooray!

/21 Comments/in , /by

According to a Substack article from this past May [link: https://substack.com/home/post/p-162330198?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web]—I just stumbled across it—a recent survey of 8th and 10th graders shows a sharp drop in the percent of boys who believe that women should have the same professional opportunities as men. Here is the graph:

Had I been asked these deceptively simple questions as a naïve eighth or tenth grader, I would certainly have given my assent. Who (I would have reasoned) could possibly be opposed to simple fairness and the impartial treatment of women? Feminism, like other utopian doctrines, can be highly plausible and seductive before it is actually put into practice.

Half a century has gone by and the American workplace is utterly saturated with women. They completely dominate certain lucrative fields such as publishing. In some cities, young women are outearning young men. You go, girl!

What have been the consequences? Two of the most obvious have been cratering fertility and the proliferation of miserable spinsters and divorcées furious at the entire male sex. These have gotten some public attention, since everyone likes children and sympathizes with unhappy women. Less attention gets paid to men, since they are largely expected to take whatever knocks life hands them and keep plugging away—not unlike a popular brand of watches promoted as able to “take a licking and keep on ticking.”

But men do not have hearts of oak or stone, and there are limits upon what can be demanded of them. Their lives have been profoundly affected by the mass invasion of the workplace by women, and it has not resembled what feminism promised them. At first, they were assured by a young and confident feminist movement that having women work would benefit men as well as the women themselves—by reducing both the pressure upon men to provide all the economic support for their families and the emphasis placed by women upon the earning-power of potential husbands.

Several decades of “women in the workforce” have ensued and the results are in. They are not pretty. For many men, the principal consequence of competing against women at work has been increased difficulty—for some an outright impossibility—of finding a wife and starting a family. In part this is because when women have their own money, they only perceive men who earn even more than they do as possible “providers,” and therefore as potential husbands. So pressure on men to earn has increased, not decreased. At the same time, the entry of large numbers of women into the workforce has increased the supply of labor, thereby reducing earnings all around. Women have gained some financial independence, it is true, but only because men have been hit with the double-whammy of lowered earnings and raised female expectations.

But there is more—much, much more. Whereas unmarried men and women used to go to dance halls or similar places of public amusement to meet members of the opposite sex, they now rub elbows every day at work. Naturally, both men and women are interested in the possibility of discovering a mate among their workplace colleagues; they would not be human if they were not. But workplace mate-seeking is not exactly treated in the same way when engaged in by women as when engaged in by men.

“Human resource” departments are a heavily female part of today’s corporate world that hardly existed before the mass entry of women into the workforce. Today they control hiring for most entry level positions. Unsurprisingly, experimental studies reveal that these female-dominated departments are more likely to extend job offers to attractive than to unattractive men. On the other hand, they incline to hire plainer women more often than pretty ones. It is not enough to bring in more handsome fellows, you see—competition from prettier girls must also be eliminated!

No doubt a company’s bottom line depends crucially on its entry level employees consisting of Adonises and plain Janes.

The obvious lesson here is that women unhesitatingly pursue their own mating strategies in the workplace. They may benefit themselves in this way, but it does nothing for efficiency, the rational allocation of resources, or edging out the competition. Yet companies tolerate the behavior. Without those HR departments, they might be liable to lawsuits over failing to hire enough women.

In a sexually integrated workplace, there will inevitably be men as well who hope to meet a nice girl to marry from among their work colleagues. But, of course, the mate-seeking behavior of such men is not indulged like that of the women in the HR department. Since the 1980s, a whole new body of law has arisen to punish male courtship behavior in the workplace under the name of “sexual harassment” (a term only coined in the late 1970s). Sexual harassment is big business now, causing countless millions of dollars to change hands every year and making a few lawyers and female plaintiffs rich. Since the term has no clear or agreed-upon definition, and since companies are legally liable if they fail to prevent the undefined phenomenon, they must assume the guilt of any man accused. Careers that took years to build up can be destroyed overnight by an unguarded word or misinterpreted gesture.

The recent #MeToo bruhaha has made the dangers clear to even the most naïve and traditionally chivalrous men. They are now deeply suspicious of their female colleagues, and with excellent reason. Cases have been uncovered of women teaming up to fabricate accusations in the hopes of getting lucrative court settlements. Many false or frivolous accusations are motivated by nothing more than the thrill of power some women experience at their ability to destroy men professionally. Much of #MeToo was of the nature of a copycat crime: women envied the attention and sympathy being expressed for accusers and waned to share in it.

Inevitably, men are adapting. An informal code has arisen under which men refuse to speak a single word to female colleagues that is not strictly work-related. No more “that’s a pretty dress,” no friendly chats around the water cooler. Every interaction that can be documented must be. Telephone calls must be recorded; complete records of all email correspondence with female colleagues must be preserved in triplicate and stored in a safe place, for any man can be called upon at any time to prove his innocence in court. In short, women have nothing more to teach men about “hostile work environments”—men are experiencing a level of hostility and suspicion in the workplace of which few women can have any conception.

Now back to that poll we cited at the beginning: it would not surprise me one bit if working men responding safely and anonymously to a pollster were to have begun telling them that women can take their “workplace equality” and stick it up their collective arse. But the really astonishing thing is that this was a poll conducted among eighth and tenth graders! As noted, this author would almost unthinkingly have agreed to feminist platitudes about equality at that age, having as yet had little experience of either women or the workplace. How is it that mere boys are now among those wising up to the feminist reign of terror over working men? Are they hearing about the realities from their fathers or elder brothers? Do they observe the privileging of girls in their own juvenile environment?

Whatever the explanation, this poll indicates that feminism is finally in serious trouble. Women have never had any right to equal work or to equal pay. At best, they have a right to support themselves in some fashion if they fail to marry. They also have a right to get married—presuming they can find a man foolish enough to propose to them, which most can if they play their cards carefully when young. They have a right to be faithful wives and dutiful mothers. And they have a right to stay out of working men’s way while men keep the world running and support their families. The future depends on women’s exercise of these rights, not the imaginary ones cooked up by utopian dreamers sixty years ago.

The Wasteland of Windrushistan: DNA, Decay and the Absurdities of Afro-Apotheosis

/12 Comments/in , , /by

What is it like to live in a communist country? I no longer ask myself that question. I don’t need to ask it — I know by direct experience. The United Kingdom in 2025 is a communist country in all but name. We’re ruled by omni-surveilling authoritarian ideologues who bombard us with absurdities and lies, preaching equality and practising hierarchy, living in luxury whilst ordinary citizens struggle to survive. Our once-proud cities are dirty, decaying and demoralized, crammed with ever more people from ever less compatible cultures who prey on and parasitize the White natives.

Hungary is still a true nation

But I have to be fair there: the cramming of incompatibles isn’t communist. Nor are the predation and parasitism by aliens on natives. As the leading hate-thinker Vox Day has pointed out, communism was far less harmful for Eastern Europe than so-called liberal democracy has proved for Western Europe. That’s because the communists didn’t open the flood-gates to low-IQ tax-eaters and criminals from the corrupt, diseased and tribalist Third World. Formerly communist Hungary, for example, is still a nation in the true sense of the word: a state whose inhabitants are bonded by blood, united by shared history and a common language. That’s no longer true of the United Kingdom, which is now a core component of Clown World. We’re no longer bonded by blood, no longer united by shared history and a common language. Instead, our true history is traduced and our clownish, crypto-communist rulers provide free translation for dark-skinned invaders who either don’t speak English or mutilate it when they do.

Clown World in Control: one of countless absurdities in the crypto-communist Yookay

All of that is why so many people have adopted the mocking term “Yookay” to describe the multi-racial, multi-cultural mud-puddle that has replaced what was once a great nation. I have another new name to suggest, something that captures the true spirit of what Britain has become. I think we should be re-named Windrushistan. It’s an ugly, hybrid name for what is now an ugly, hybrid place. The “Windrush” honors the ship that in 1948 blighted Britain with the first big influx of Blacks from the Caribbean, as Andrew Joyce explained in his magisterial article “The SS Empire Windrush: The Jewish Origins of Multicultural Britain.” And the suffix “-istan” salutes Islam, the religion of rape-gangs and rapacity, the vigorous and violent faith that is replacing effete and treacherous official Christianity on these islands. Say it again: Windrushistan. Savour the syllables: Wind-rush-i-stan. We’re no longer Great Britain or the United Kingdom — we’re the Wasteland of Windrushistan.

Celebrating Blacks, execrating Whites

Indeed, we’re the Windy Wasteland of Windrushistan. You could hear the wind blowing in great gusts of absurdity and mendacity during the celebration of Windrush Day 2025 in the “UK Parliament” on Monday 16th June. Hansard, the official record of proceedings in parliament, has helpfully captured all the absurdity and mendacity for posterity, as you’ll see below. Note that the celebration of Blacks was accompanied by the execration of Whites — the ordinary, working-class Whites who genuinely built Britain by laboring in her factories and on her farms and who objected with “racism” to the crime and chaos of the unwanted Black invaders.[1] Physicists and fans of science fiction should also marvel at the temporal paradox that took place in Liverpool, a city that the “Windrush Generation” arrived in before they had “built” it. So here’s a little of what was said in parliament:

On 22 June 1948, HMT [His Majesty’s Transport] Empire Windrush arrived in Tilbury docks from the Caribbean, carrying 1,027 passengers and two stowaways. More than half the passengers came from Jamaica, and there were many from Trinidad, Bermuda and British Guiana. […] In 1948, the UK was desperate for labour to help rebuild the country following the devastation of the second world war, and the passengers on the Windrush brought a wealth of skills [e.g. rape, robbery, violence, educational failure]. […]

However, as we remember those stories with affection, our commemorations of Windrush Day must avoid any sentimentality. The contribution of the Windrush pioneers was made in a context of widespread racism, the clearest and ugliest illustration of which was found on signs on the doors of boarding houses — stating “No Irish, no blacks, no dogs”[2] — and which in many situations ran much deeper, often resulting in daily discrimination and humiliation. An egregious example is the appalling and still unaddressed scandal of black children being deemed emotionally subnormal in the 1960s and ’70s and being placed in special schools, where they were denied an education and made to feel inferior. […]

The Windrush generation came to Britain as citizens —invited by Enoch Powell, we should remember — to rebuild a broken nation after the war. In Liverpool, they settled mostly in the south of the city, building a vibrant community and contributing to our culture in many different ways, from music to food to football and to the unique Scouse spirit [“Scouse” is a colloquial term for Liverpool]. They included Lord Woodbine, a Trinidadian who helped The Beatles to achieve fame, but who sadly was written out of history. They worked in the shipyards, the hospitals, the buses and the schools. Against the daily struggles and common racism, they built our city and claimed it as their home. […] Today is a reminder that our diversity is the best of us. For the sacrifice these immigrants made to better our country, we all owe them a debt. […]

I have spoken before in this Chamber about the role the Windrush generation played in not only rebuilding our nation, but transforming our society and culture. My constituency of Clapham and Brixton Hill was completely reshaped by the Windrush generation, with a legacy that is still evident in the people, the culture, the music, the art, the cuisine and in so many other ways. Beyond rebuilding our cities and enriching our culture, the Windrush generation played a crucial role in shaping and sustaining the public services that we continue to rely on every single day. They were the nurses, midwives and doctors who formed the backbone of our NHS, often working long hours in difficult conditions to care for the sick and vulnerable. They were the bus drivers and train operators who kept our transport networks running, ensuring that Britain’s economy kept going. They were the teachers who educated generations of children, instilling in them the values of hard work and perseverance. They served in our armed forces, fighting for a country that did not always recognise them as equals. Their contributions were not just significant — they were indispensable. Without them, Britain would not be the country it is today. (“Windrush Day 2025,” “debated on Monday 16 June 2025,” Hansard, UK Parliament, Volume 769)

For a detailed refutation of those absurd lies about the “indispensable” contributions of unwanted and unneeded Blacks, I heartily recommend this thread at Twitter. To cap all the absurdity and lies, Hansard described “Windrush Day 2025” as having been “debated.” But there was absolutely no debate: there was simply declamation of pious propaganda and logic-free lies. It was a festival of Afro-Apotheosis, that is, the raising of Blacks to divine status in the face of all past history and all present reality. Britain did not need the “contribution” of low-IQ, high-criminality Blacks after the war and Britons — true White Britons — did not want the presence of Blacks. But I can heartily agree with the last line I’ve quoted above from Hansard: “Without [the Windrush Generation], Britain would not be the country it is today.” Yes, without that first opening of the flood-gates — or mud-gates, as they’d be better called — Britain would not be the failing country it is today, the dirty, decaying, demoralized country racked by rape-gangs and pervaded with a sense of fast-approaching dissolution and doom.

A hypothetical heretic

But it’s entirely unsurprising that there was no debate about Windrush Day 2025, because the windy Windrushistanis in parliament were almost all women — traitorous White women like Helen Hayes, Deirdre Costigan, Kim Johnson, Stella Creasy, Lisa Smart and Harriet Cross; self-worshipping non-White women like Dawn Butler, Florence Eshalomi, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Harpreet Uppal and Sureena Brackenridge. Just as I no longer wonder what it was like to live in a communist country, I no longer wonder whether it was a good idea to give votes to women and allow women to enter politics. It wasn’t. For every tough-minded, clear-thinking and intelligent woman like Ann Coulter in politics there are a hundred — or a thousand — vapid, vaporing female airheads. Women in general don’t like debate. Instead, they like conformity. In a sane society, that can be a good thing, because women will conform to sanity. In an insane society like the Yookay, women conform to insanity.

White British men did not die on D-Day to put Black women like these into the British parliament (left-to-right: Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Dawn Butler, Florence Eshalomi)

And when women conform to insanity, they condemn sanity. Can you imagine what would have happened if someone had tried to introduce genuine debate into that clucking chorus of Afro-Apotheosis in the House of Commons? If someone had dared to air the toxic truth, that Blacks don’t bless Britain but blight Britain? The clucks of approval would have been replaced by squawks of outrage. The airheads would have demanded that the heretic be arrested, be arraigned, be incarcerated! But if our hypothetical heretic had been clever, he could have cozened the cluckers. He could have led them on by calling for the celebration of one of the brightest stars of the Windrush Generation, an under-recognized over-achiever who came to Britain from Jamaica in the 1970s to make an outsized contribution in the face of official opprobrium and unrelenting police hostility. Yes, our hypothetical heretic in the House might have said something like this:

Amidst the chorus of celebration I note with sadness and concern that one giant of the Windrush Generation has been undeservedly overlooked, despite the size and strenuousness of his contributions to Britain over many years. I can truthfully and unequivocally say that the man of whom I speak was performing a job that the so-called white natives of Britain simply would not and could not do. More astoundingly still, he achieved all that he did whilst caring for a disabled wife and whilst facing unrelenting hostility from both the police and the media. Might I ask my colleagues to join with me in saluting Delroy Easton Grant? He is the Jamaican-born giant who has found a permanent and unshakeable place in British history by [and now the clucks of approval would be about to change to squawks of outrage] raping and robbing dozens of elderly White women in a campaign of relentless and remorseless racial terror carried out by night over nearly two decades in South East London. Many of those elderly women endured permanent trauma and suffered premature death thanks to Mr Grant, who is a prime example of the little-recognized fact that Blacks rape old White women at even higher rates than they rape young White women. Indeed, Mr Grant found time in his busy schedule to perform sexual assaults on elderly White men too, cementing his unique place in the annals of British crime and confirming the true nature of the “contributions” made by the Windrush Generation to our country. My colleagues have claimed that Blacks bless Britain. That is an absurd and easily refuted lie. Delroy Easton Grant is one example among many of the obvious but officially unspeakable truth: that Blacks blight Britain.

Bestial Blacks Delroy Easton Grant and Emmanuel Adeniji, two gerontophile rapists who have blighted Britain and Ireland

But there was no heretic like that, of course. Instead the clucking chorus of absurd Afro-Apotheosis went entirely uninterrupted and unchallenged. And one of the Afrolaters — Black worshippers — said this:

In my constituency, the Windrush generation helped to forge the Brixton we know today. In doing so, they made a huge contribution to a community where everyone is welcome, where difference is not feared but celebrated, and where we are not strangers but friends and neighbours. To mark the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush, talented young people from Brixton designed a beautiful logo, which is based on the pattern of human DNA.

The Windrush generation and subsequent migrants who have come to this country from all over the Commonwealth sparked the emergence of modern multicultural Britain. They are part of us, and part of the UK’s 21st-century DNA. The Windrush generation made an extraordinary and enduring contribution […] (“Windrush Day 2025,” “debated on Monday 16 June 2025,” Hansard, UK Parliament, Volume 769

That was Helen Hayes, the blonde White Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood. For understandable reasons, she didn’t mention the knife-crime and acid-throwing that enhance the vibrancy of Black-enriched communities “where everyone is welcome” and “where we are not strangers but friends and neighbours.” And Ms Hayes didn’t mention another noteworthy connection between the “pattern of human DNA” and the “Windrush generation.” That connection was visible in a trial taking place even as Ms Hayes was on her feet in parliament, showering the Windrush Generation with sycophancy and smarm:

Court-artist’s rendition of Ryland Headley, a previously unacknowledged over-achiever of the Windrush Generation (image from BBC)

Man, 92, who allegedly raped and murdered woman in 1967 caught after DNA advances, court told

Detectives caught a 92-year-old man who it is alleged murdered and raped a woman in her home almost six decades ago after advances in DNA techniques led them to the suspect, a jury has been told. An extensive police operation was launched in Bristol in the summer of 1967 after the death of mother of two Louisa Dunne, 75, but her killer could not be found, a jury at the city’s crown court heard.

Evidence relating to the case was stored and last year a DNA match was allegedly made between material found at the murder scene and a man named Ryland Headley, the court was told. Headley, from Ipswich, Suffolk, denies murder and rape. In the prosecution’s opening, Anna Vigars KC said police had never given up finding the killer. She said: “What we are talking about is the murder of an elderly and vulnerable lady in her own home. […]” The jury heard that soon after the murder, Headley moved to Suffolk, where in 1977 he raped two women, threatening to strangle or smother them if they did not follow his orders. Vigars said Dunne had been born in May 1892, when Queen Victoria was on the UK throne and by 1967 was living alone in Britannia Road, Easton, Bristol. She had been married twice, to a city alderman and to a nightwatchman, but both had died. Neighbours knew her as “a local fixture”, always out on her doorstep, watching the world go by.

On 28 June 1967, a number of local women became worried about Dunne after noticing that one of her windows was open. A neighbour, Violet Allen, climbed in and found her dead. A postmortem was performed. Dunne was 5ft 3in tall and weighed less than seven stone (45kg). […] She had abrasions to her face and bruises to the back of the head and her right thigh. The pathologist concluded a hand had been forcibly held over her mouth, and that a bruise across the back of her neck had been caused by a scarf found under her body having been violently tightened. A vaginal swab taken from her tested positive for semen.

Police found a palm print on a window at the back of the house and over the following weeks took thousands of prints from men and boys but could not find a match. Vigars told the jury that though semen had been found, DNA examination was “not a technique in the armoury” of the police at that time. The material gathered in the investigation was boxed and preserved, latterly at the major crime archives at Avon and Somerset police headquarters. The case was looked at from time to time and in 2024 items including the blue skirt Dunne had been wearing were sent off for forensic examination. […] The jury was told forensic scientist Andrew Parry discovered that Dunne’s skirt contained “a large quantity of semen”.

Vigars said: “By 2024, scientists were able to do what was impossible nearly 60 years earlier and examine that semen for DNA. Mr Parry discovered that the semen matched Mr Headley’s DNA with a match ratio that meant it was a billion times more likely to be Mr Headley’s DNA than anybody else’s.” Police found voters’ records from the late 1960s showing that Headley and his wife lived in Picton Street, Bristol, about a mile and a half from Dunne’s home. Vigars said: “Picton Street fell outside the ring of homes where men had been asked to provide a palm print.”

The jury heard that in 1977 Headley raped two women, one aged 84, one 79, in Suffolk, where he had moved soon after Dunne’s death, after breaking into their homes. He threatened to strangle the 84-year-old if she did not do what he ordered, the court heard. Headley told the 79-year-old he had a gun and warned her that, if she did not follow his instructions: “I’ll put a pillow over your face and smother you.” He admitted both rapes and asked for a further 10 offences of overnight burglaries of homes where his fingerprints had been found between 1973 and 1978 to be taken into consideration. After his arrest for Dunne’s murder and rape, his palm print was taken — and experts said it matched the one taken at her home in 1967. (“Man, 92, who allegedly raped and murdered woman in 1967 caught after DNA advances, court told,” The Guardian, 16th June 2025)

So Louisa Dunne was “5ft 3in tall” (160 cm) and “weighed less than seven stone” (45 kg or 98 lbs). And in 1967 she allegedly had a vibrant encounter with one of the Black newcomers who were making such “valuable contributions” to Britain. Ryland Headley’s contribution may have consisted of raping and murdering Louisa Dunne. He certainly raped at least two other elderly White women. Like Delroy Easton Grant, Headland is a prime example of the Black genius for depravity and degeneracy. And like the other victims of these two depraved Blacks, it appears that we can easily understand why Louisa Dunne failed to live out her days in calm and serenity, “watching the world go by.” It was thanks to White traitors at the top and the White-hating Jews who controlled those traitors and supplied them with their ideological script. The traitors and the Jews unleashed the “Windrush Generation” on the unwilling ordinary Whites of the United Kingdom, ensuring that Blacks would commit endless violent crimes against ordinary Whites, drain vast sums of money paid in tax by ordinary Whites, and drive huge numbers of ordinary Whites out of the cities that Blacks were enriching with noise, dirt, crime and chaos.

Two Bestial Blacks from the post-Windrush Generation, Mohamed Iidow and Xyaire Howard, a proven rapist-murderer and a probable rapist-murderer

In 1948, when the mud-gates began to open, the United Kingdom was still a nation. In 2025, it’s no longer a nation and no longer worthy of its older name. No, today we live in the Yookay, today we wander the Wasteland of Windrushistan. But Windrushistan will fall. The mud-flood won’t be reversed without fire and blood, but more and more Whites see the truth and are getting ready to fight to take their country back. That clucking, conformist chorus for “Windrush Day 2025” is more and more seen for what it truly is: an absurd celebration of an unconscionable atrocity. One of the clucking conformists claimed that “we all owe [the Windrush Generation] a debt.” She was lying. In truth, we owe the Windrush Generation death after death after death. They were in fact the Windrush Degeneration, an unwanted invasion of alien Blacks whose low intelligence and high criminality have not blessed Britain but blighted Britain. For proof of the blight, I again heartily recommend that truth-telling Twitter thread.[3] For example:

[1]  At bottom, leftist worship of non-Whites and Muslims is powered not by love of non-Whites and Islam, but by hatred of Whites and Christianity.

[2]  The existence of these infamously worded signs is an endlessly repeated claim for which there is absolutely no evidence, as even a leftist academic once admitted in the Guardian. Writing in 2015, the historian Steve Bruce issued a “plea to Guardian readers. If ‘No Irish’ signs were as common as is asserted, there should be plenty of them remaining in private collections, local archives and the like. … Can we please see some?” No, Bruce couldn’t. He was calling for facts when he should have been kneeling in faith.

[3]  The Twitter thread reminds me to note this: Badly as Trump has erred over Iran, we would be far worse off under cocoa-colored Kamala. If she’d been in the White House today, Elon Musk could well have been in court, in jail or in exile, rather than allowing heretical hate-thinkers to broadcast toxic truths on Twitter.

Toy-Boys and Goy-Boys: Some Heinous Hate-Think for Pride Month

/5 Comments/in , /by

After Gay Liberation in the 1970s, the Glorious Gay Community (G.G.C.) got one big thing it didn’t want. At the same time, it didn’t get one big thing that it did want. The big thing it got but didn’t want was AIDS, which was a product of the gay genius for brewing butt-busting bugs by energetically practising unnatural sex. As the hate-scientist Gregory Cochran puts it: “Homosexual men are nature’s Petri dishes.”

Cruelty to chickenhawks

And what was the big thing the G.G.C. didn’t get but did want? Simple: it was the legalization of sex with children. The recent eulogies for the great gay writer Edmund White haven’t discussed some interesting lines from his bestseller States of Desire: Travels in Gay America (1980):

I’m not in the business of recommending guidelines for sex with youngsters; I simply haven’t gathered enough information about the various issues involved. But one proposal that seems reasonable to me would be to lower the age of consent to twelve for boys and girls, regardless of whether the sex involved is straight or gay and regardless of the age of the older partner. (“Boston and Washington, D.C.,” ch. 9, p. 286)

White also revealed in the book that “One of my dear friends is a convinced but discreet chickenhawk” (ch. 8, p. 254) — that is, a pedophile who pursued boys (“chicken” is gay slang for a partner who’s hairless, like a plucked chicken). Later, he interviewed another chickenhawk and committed “cruelty” against him:

From Joy to Oy!: First Silverstein celebrates sodomy, then AIDS slaughters sodomites

“Sometimes,” I said, “I think gay radicals have made a mistake to take up the cause of pedophilia. There’s been so much about pedophilia in the radical press — Fag Rag’s special supplement; the Body Politic’s ‘Men Loving Boys Loving Men.’ There’s no way society is ever going to accept man-boy love. And it’s not as though there are very many boy-lovers.” I was aware of the cruelty of what I was saying. (“Boston and Washington, D.C.,” p. 286)

How many people today know that “gay radicals” took up “the cause of pedophilia” in the 1970s and ’80s? Or that “Gay Leftists in the United States and abroad” were “debating the issue of gay pederasty and pedophilia with considerable energy”? (p. 283) All that has gone down the memory-hole. It’s an aspect of Glorious Gay History that the mainstream media don’t want to discuss, just as the mainstream media doesn’t want to discuss some current aspects of the disease Mpox (formerly known as monkeypox). It’s sexually transmitted and prevalent among homosexuals, so why does it sometimes affect children and animals living with homosexuals? Amid their incessant celebration of homosexuality, the mainstream media don’t want to ask that fascinating question, let alone answer it. Gay is Good, after all.

“How did monkeypox spread from men to boys?” A fascinating question that the mainstream media are failing to ask

But that by no means exhausts the fascinating questions the mainstream media are currently failing to ask about the Glorious Gay Community. For example, in Britain three members of the G.G.C. will “face trial in April of next year” over “arson attacks on two properties and a car.” The men are allegedly rent-boys, that is, male prostitutes. Two of them, Roman Lavrynovych, 21, and Petro Pochynok, 34, are Ukrainian, while the third, Stanislav Carpiuc, 26, is a Romanian born in Ukraine. That’s already a very interesting story. Why might rent-boys from Ukraine be setting fire to houses and cars in London? But what makes the story even more interesting is that the arson-attacked houses and cars are all “linked to Sir Keir Starmer,” as the BBC discreetly puts it.

Starmer’s Charmers: the three alleged rent-boys who will go on trial nearly a year from now (image from BBC)

That’s the only mention of Starmer in the BBC story about the upcoming trial of the alleged arsonist rent-boys. However, can you imagine what the BBC and rest of the mainstream media would be saying if alleged Ukrainian rent-boys were accused of arson in Washington against property “linked to” Donald Trump? I can certainly imagine it. The mainstream media would be going nuts. They certainly went nuts over an entirely fictitious sex-story about Trump and female prostitutes in Russia. And over an entirely fictitious sex-story about David Cameron, the former British prime minister, and a pig’s head at Oxford University. For left-wing Starmer there’s discretion; for right-wing Trump and not-so-left-wing Cameron there was hysteria.

Averting the Gaze from Gray Gays

So was Starmer having sex with the rent-boys? Did they fall out with him for some reason and seek revenge by committing arson on his property? Those are the obvious questions that the mainstream media aren’t asking. If Starmer is secretly gay or bisexual, then he’s an obvious candidate to join the club possibly established by Blobamacron. That’s my collective name for Tony Blair, Barack Obama and Emmanuel Macron, who are all rumored to be secretly gay or bisexual and who may all have been blackmailed over it by the Israeli spy-agency Mossad. If so, they aren’t toy-boys but goy-boys, gentile males performing services for Israel under threat of exposure. Perhaps Jewish Israel — or Jew-run Ukraine — turned Starmer into a goy-boy by threatening to expose his pursuit of toy-boys, which may date back decades.

Definitely gray, possibly gay: the power-hungry leftist lawyer Keir Starmer

But now Starmer’s latest toy-boys are in “the high security Belmarsh prison in south-east London,” awaiting trial on charges of “arson with intent to endanger life.” Or so it appears. Then again, who ever got a gay vibe off Starmer? Instead, people got a gray vibe — he always seemed a paradigm of the gray leftist bureaucrat, as dull and dreary on the outside as he was hungry for power and privilege on the inside.

We were obviously being blinkered bigots. Why shouldn’t a member of the Gray Community also be a member of the Gay Community? And there is something suggesting strongly that the current British prime minister is indeed both Gray and Gay. It’s the failure of the mainstream media to pursue all those fascinating questions about the fire-bug fairies, the Ukrainian rent-boys now charged with arson against property “linked to Sir Keir Starmer.” Silence is a sure sign of significance.

If Pride Month Was About Straight People

/in /by

Andrew Grant “Charlotte” Fosgate: Suicide, Mockery, and Derision

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Suicide of Andrew Grant “Charlotte” Fosgate and the Mockery and Derision in Response

Stigma, Shame, and Other Negative Sanctions are Vital To Stopping the Transgender Menace

The above image features an image of St. Johns Bridge in Portland, Oregon, featured in the last tweet posted by Fosgate’s “charlotteburntfishie” account.

Author’s Note: the nature of this essay, a time sensitive “news” story, is particularly subject to revision and expansion.

As some readers are likely well aware, there is some controversy on social media concerning the apparent suicide of a Portland teen who had succumbed to transgender delirium. His name was Andrew Grant Fosgate, who adopted the name “Charlotte” in order to pretend that he was a young woman. On May 2, 2025, he posted this tweet with a picture of St. Johns Bridge in Portland Oregon. This had gone unnoticed for several weeks, until it was alleged that his death was confirmed. Note there are some who doubt the veracity of these reports.

Right-wingers and edgelords on twitter soon became aware of this, and reacted with mockery and derision. This tweet was met with both support and outrage, just as Stonetoss made a meme with the image of Andrew’s last tweet his profile banner for his twitter account.

This in turn has mobilized transgenders and their enablers to denounce such reactions, many of them making death threats or condoning violence explicitly. The position asserted by this motley assortment of cretins is that it is morally reprehensible to mock or celebrate the death of the “child.” Much of the outcry uses the word ‘child’ repeatedly to describe a junior or senior in high school, a minor who can drive a car, be emancipated as an adult, and tried as an adult under certain circumstances. They further assert that it is this sort of cruelty which drove the young person to suicide. Until Friday May 30, this was largely self-contained on twitter and other social media outlets, although it had been covered on Perez Hilton. And today, May 31, it was covered on Rolling Stone, compelling the publication of this short essay on The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective.

It cannot be stressed enough that no one has shown actual proof that Andrew Grant Fosgate received any sort of pushback, criticism, or even bullying in relation to his mad delusion that he is a “girl.” In fact, according to the tweets and other materials reproduced below, his mother, a single mother, was proactive in feeding this delusion, enabling and encouraging his “transition,” even giving him estrogen shots according to the teen’s own twitter account. There is no evidence that any of his peers criticized, balked, or stigmatized this lunacy in any way.

Despite assertions to the contrary, there should have been a great deal of criticism and stigma by his peers and society at large, in order to deter him and anyone else from entertaining such an impossible delusion in the first place. Some, particularly those of a more mainstream persuasion, including some of those of a Christian faith, may find some of the tweets, memes, and other reaction to this incident distasteful. It should be noted, however, that the young man had become truly contemptible, advocating for White genocide. His detractors insist it is a joke, but when something has to be explained that it is a joke, it has necessarily failed in its attempt at humor.¹

It is also of note that embracing the death and suicide of Andrew Grant Fosgate to advance the transgender cause is contrary to sound principles related to suicide prevention and the copy-cat phenomenon. As hard as it may be for some to fathom, and in contravention to naïveté about “the free marketplace of ideas,” suicide, among many other harmful and irrational behaviors, rubs off on other people. The suicide rate jumped up some twelve percent after Marilyn Monroe committed suicide. This has led to a greater understanding of social contagion and the copy-cat phenomenon, as it has led to strict protocols on how suicide is covered.2 As a general rule, media protocols dictate that such stories are publicized only very briefly, with a mere statement of what had transpired, replete with disclaims including suicide hotlines and so on. Transgender lunatics and their enablers are instead publicizing this, making a martyr of the fallen teen and blaming “transphobia” for his decision when in fact his family and all of his local society in Portland condoned and encouraged this delusion. Suicide attempts by so-called “transgenders” could very likely go up as a result, but those advancing this sick ideology will use it to silence detractors and blame those against this insanity for it, rather than the infusion of this impossible delusion into the stream of culture.

More importantly, such protestations do not change the fact that transgenderism is being normalized, and becoming mainstream. The only way to push this collective delusion into the dark recesses of society is through overt stigma and shaming and, if there is a political mandate to do so, legal sanctions, from restricting to banning so-called “gender affirming care.” Such a legislative response would be akin to laws like anti-prostitution and anti-gambling laws that, while never able to completely eradicate these vices, do provide an important deterrent while signaling that society finds these vices anathema.

Until such time as a political mandate has been realized to use state power to impose such sanctions, stigma and shame are the best deterrents. It may seem distasteful to some, but the more cases like those of Andrew Grant Fosgate are mocked and derided or met with other negative social sanctions, the more people will be dissuaded from entertaining this mad folly in the first place. Such negative responses are essential in order to prevent deviancy being defined even further down3 by mainstreaming transgenderism outright.

Stated another way, right-wing stalwarts, luminaries, and provocateurs like Stonetoss are not what killed Andrew Grant Fosgate. Rather it is the dissemination and promulgation of this sick ideology that implants this impossible idea into the minds of people on a macro, societal level, further aided and encouraged by lunatics like his mother. That transgender ideology is nothing other than the maddest delusion is proven by even a cursory glance at this creature before his demise. Despite being draped in concealing clothing, the unmistakably male features are immediately apparent in the size of his feet, and the distinctly male if not masculine features of his face, this despite adolescent males often having babyface features, to mention nothing of the estrogen shots he was receiving from that mother of his.

Charlotte Sometimes? Charlotte NEVER!
Above, an image of the boy pretending to be a girl. Below, some mad lad edited a picture of him to look more like what he is.

Fighting a culture war is never for the faint of heart, which is probably why mainstream conservatives have done almost nothing but bring about defeat after impending defeat. As with other matters, mealy-mouthed murmurings from such fuddy-duddies need to be ignored. Their strategy has been tried, and it has largely failed.

The loss of young life is often tragic and lamentable, but those voices responding sharply to this event are precisely those voices that needed to be heard as soon as the transgender agenda entered mainstream society when Bruce Jenner appeared in Vanity Fair. Just as they needed to be heard in other ways society and culture have devolved in the decades before, defining deviancy ever further downward. For that reason, those with ideological focus and intellectual acuity will not condemn those who respond in this way, but join them in the fight.

ADDENDUM (June 2, 2025): some of the hysteria by tansgender lunatics and their enablers has died down somewhat. The story has since been convered by local Oregon news, as well as LGBTQ Yuck propaganda rag Pink News (as any internet search query will demonstrate). Transgender vermin and radical gender ideologues have made the spot where Fosgate jumped into a shrine, and those against this lunacy are leaving mementos in mockery and derision. As stated, publicizing the suicide in this way to push so-called transgender rights is in contravention to basic protocols to prevent suicide ideation based on the copy-cat and socail contagion phenomena. These cretins are far more interested in trying to appropriate the death of Andrew Grant Fosgate as a martyr for their insidious cause than trying to prevent copy-cats. Below readers will find screenshots demonstrating these developments, as well as a sample of incitement to violence by the left. The latter is protected speech under Brandenburg vs Ohio, but is liklely in contravention to terms of service under twitter any other mainstream social media platform.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.

 

1 There are other unsavory postings associated with his social media footprint. The interest of brevity prevents a further exposition of such matters, at least for now.

2 This is discusseed at length in “When So Many Do Jump off a Bridge.”

3 Those unfamiliar with this critical concept are directed to this brief description, taken from “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Councern:”

Discussed in detail by the late Robert Bork in the introductory chapter to Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Defining Deviancy Down posits—quite correctly—that any society, no matter how moral or depraved, can only afford to regard so much behavior as deviant before that behavior becomes normalized. This is closely related with the Durkheim Constant, postulated by German Jewish sociologist Emile Durkheim, which posits every society, no matter how moral or depraved, will have the same quotient of behavior that society regards as deviant. A society of saints will have vastly different morals and mores than a society of sinners, but both societies will regard the same quotient of behavior on the outlying edges of that particular society as deviant. Quite critically, as deviancy is defined ever further downward, society will then regard behavior that had been regarded as normal and beneficial as deviant

Moobs on the Move: Translunatic Tantrums and Core Concepts of Clown World

/3 Comments/in , /by

“Pissing in Public.” That was the alliterative theme of the first tranny tantrum. “Moobs on the Move.” That’s been the alliterative theme of the second tranny tantrum. Narcissists hate being told “No,” you see, and translunatic narcissists in Britain were told “No” by the Supreme Court in April 2025, when judges ruled that women are defined by biology, not by bullshit.

Moobs on the move: some mentally ill men parade their perversion in public (images from Pink News and translunatic Munroe Bergdorf)

“It’s fascism!” cried the translunatic narcissists. “We’re being erased!” So they held a tranny tantrum outside parliament in April and some of them pissed in public. It was an ugly and uncouth thing to do. It was also against the law, because it was plainly “an outrage against public decency.” But translunatics belong to a privileged class under leftism and the police did nothing. At the end of May, the police have stood by again as participants in a second tranny tantrum have committed a second outrage against public decency. As Pink News put it: “Topless trans folks protest outside Downing Street in ‘deeply symbolic act’.” In other words, a group of mentally ill and sexually perverted men exposed their moobs in public after marching from Marble Arch.

A cute cat and a canine clown: Men can no more become women than dogs can become cats

Moobs are man-boobs and are usually a sure sign that something is wrong with a male body (the medical term is gynecomastia). In this case, the moobs were a sure sign that something was wrong — badly wrong — with male brains. The men had moobs because they’d been injecting themselves with female hormones. That’s a deeply unnatural and unhealthy thing to do, but it’s one of the sacred rites of Clown World, the vast system of lunatic leftism that currently rules the West. In Clown World, lunacy is held up as sanity and lies are held up as truth. One of the central lies of Clown World is this: “Men can become real women.” That’s a core concept of Clown World, blatant bullshit contradicting basic biology. But a related lie is even corer Clown. It goes like this: “Non-Whites can become real Westerners.”

Blacks in America behave like Blacks in Africa: they rape, murder and destroy civilization

Again, it’s blatant bullshit contradicting basic biology. No, men cannot become women; and no, non-Whites cannot become Westerners. Except in a strictly geographic sense. Non-Whites can live on Western soil, but that doesn’t make them authentic members of Western societies. As the leading hate-thinker Vox Day has so often pointed out: The dirt isn’t magic. That’s why I call non-Whites in the West “trans-Westerners.” The lies that justify their presence in the West run in parallel with the lies that justify the presence of transwomen in female spaces. In reality, the transwomen aren’t genuine women and the trans-Westerners aren’t genuine Westerners. But that’s precisely why leftism gives special privilege to these unnatural invaders and elevates them far above authentic members of the groups to which they claim to belong. The consequences of that privilege are trivial when it comes to trannies, traumatic when it comes to trans-Westerners. Trannies have had licence to piss in public. Trans-Westerners have had licence to commit decades of rape, torture and sexual enslavement in ethnically enriched places like Rotherham.

Clown-Kings Import Cousin-Copulators

But Rotherham is merely the tip of the trans-Western iceberg. This small town in Yorkshire is now infamous around the world for its Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs, but much worse has happened in nearby cities like Leeds and Bradford. When Pakistanis come to Britain, they don’t become British but remain Pakistani. In other words, they retain their proud Pakistani traditions both of child-rape and of cousin-marriage, which is guaranteed to lower IQ and create horrible genetic diseases. The Pakistani tradition of child-rape has destroyed the lives of countless children from the White majority; the Pakistani tradition of cousin marriage has destroyed the lives of countless children from the Pakistani minority itself. In both cases, leftists have stood by and done nothing. Like transwomen injecting themselves with oestrogen, trans-Westerners marrying their cousins is deeply unnatural and unhealthy.

Feelings don’t reverse facts: just say no to transgenderism and trans-Westernism

So what’s not to like for Clown World? Cousin-marriage will help wreck the West and Clown World wants to wreck the West. That’s why the Clown-Kings are so eager to import non-Whites who will practise cousin-marriage — and child-rape — with unrelenting enthusiasm. In Britain, the cousin-copulators and child-rapists are mainly Pakistani. In Germany, they’re mainly Arab. In both countries — I won’t dignify them with the noble name of “nation” any more — the trans-Westerners are footsoldiers in a war on the West. And in both countries, the Clown-Kings insist that the trans-Westerners are true citizens, just as they insist that transwomen are true females. For example, the German branch of Clown-World has been celebrating the heroism of a newly arrived trans-Westerner called Muhammad Al Muhammad. He’s a Syrian refugee and helped to subdue a “39-year-old German woman” who had stabbed eighteen people at Hamburg rail-station. This reverses the usual pattern whereby it’s Syrians stabbing Germans, you see, so Clown-World is using Heroic Mo to pretend that Syrians are good for Germany.

The Hamburg stabber under arrest: note large chin and flat chest

They aren’t, of course, and it will be no surprise if this stabber-subduing Syrian appears again in the news for perpetrating a violent crime rather than helping to prevent one. But there’s something about the Hamburg stabbing that Clown-World is keeping quiet about rather than celebrating. Or so I suspect. Clown-World has said that the attacker is a “39-year-old German woman.” But stabbing eighteen people is not something you’d expect a woman to do. It’s a male kind of crime. That’s why I immediately suspected that the attacker wasn’t a woman but a transwoman.

When I saw a video of the attacker being bundled out of the station by police, my suspicions were confirmed. The gait and posture of the arrested individual, the height and flat chest, all say “man” to me. So does the chin. The attacker is a transwoman, not a woman. That’s what I think. But am I given pause because the police have said that “there is ‘very concrete evidence’ of mental illness in the suspect”? Not at all. Transgenderism and mental illness go together like Islam and child-rape. Where you’ve got the first, you automatically have the other. That’s why transwomen and Muslims are both so high in the hierarchy of Clown-World, far above the real women whom the transwomen parody and the White children whom the Muslims prey upon.

Appendix: Music for Moobs on the Move

Whoever invented the term “moob” was a master of language. So was whoever wrote the lyrics of this song.

“The Transgender Song”

(To the tune of “If You’re Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands”)

If a person has a penis, he’s a man!

If a person has a penis, he’s a man!

If he doesn’t want to lose it,

Even though he doesn’t use it,

If a person has a penis, he’s a man!

If a person has a nutsack, he’s a man!

If a person has a nutsack, he’s a man!

He can tuck it to conceal it,

Let it dangle and reveal it,

If a person has a nutsack, he’s a man!

If he amputates his bits, he’s still a man!

If he grows a pair of tits, he’s still a man!

If the chromosome’s a “Y,”

HE WILL ALWAYS BE A GUY…

If he isn’t born a woman, he’s a man!

Reversing the Decline in White Fertility

/14 Comments/in , /by

An Address to the Fourth Finnish Awakening Conference in Hyvinkää, May 24, 2025 by F. Roger Devlin

The theme of this conference was announced as “immigration and the white fertility crisis.” The two subjects are obviously related. Certain resources are not elastic, such as territory. The more of a nation’s territory is occupied by immigrants, the less is left for the native population. Immigrants put pressure on other limited resources as well—jobs, housing, schools and hospitals, government spending—competing against the native population, and thereby making it more difficult for the natives to raise large families. Moreover, most immigrants to the West come from poorer countries, so they experience access to our labor markets and welfare state programs as an economic bonanza. They can afford more children here than they would have had back home. Across the West, migrant fertility is therefore higher than native levels. This means that even if all immigration were suddenly to stop today, the replacement of our own people by outsiders would continue for years to come through differential fertility. Patriotic Europeans must not, therefore, limit their demands to reducing immigration. Only a determined program of repatriation can safeguard the legitimate interests of our descendants.

All this being admitted, however, there are many European countries with below-replacement fertility levels which cannot primarily be explained by immigration, and I believe Finland is such a country. Finnish women, I understand, now bear an average of 1.4 or fewer children over the course of their lifetimes. Large-scale immigration is still far too recent here to account for such a dreadful figure. So in my remarks today I am going to focus on harmful fertility-reducing trends internal to the West, which does not mean that I consider immigration unimportant.

Modern Homo sapiens arrived in Europe from Africa around forty thousand years ago. At the most fundamental level, what defines us, the European peoples, and distinguishes us from the rest of humanity, is the result of evolutionary pressures which have operated upon us in the unique environment of Europe during these past forty thousand years. Intelligence, careful planning for the future, and an ability to defer gratification and be sparing in our use of limited resources are just a few of the traits we owe to having made our homes in a land of prolonged cold winters. I do not think a Finnish audience should require a long argument in support of this point.

But today I want to emphasize one particular difference between Europe and Africa. When our remote ancestors migrated to the colder climate of Europe, women’s dependence on male provisioning greatly increased.

In West Africa to this day, women produce most of the food, for men as well as for themselves. This is because African farming requires only simple tools such as hoes that women can operate just as well as men. But those African women would not have been able to nourish themselves as easily in pre-industrial Europe. Traditional European agriculture requires plowing, which makes far greater demands on upper body strength. In other words, in Europe, farming is men’s work. For this reason, all over pre-industrial Europe, men provided the food while women took care of the home. This economic pattern worked to strengthen pair-bonding in Europe. It made us more monogamous than our remoter African ancestors. To this day, West Africa is polygamous: the most polygamous society in the world, in fact. This is because women who produce their own food do not need to seek out a reliable, committed provider. So they simply mate as they please, including with already-married men. Needless to say, intensive polygamy results in plenty of bachelors with a lot of time on their hands. Criminal gangs proliferate. It is not a pretty picture.

In Europe, on the other hand, the dedicated provisioning of wife and children has long been an essential part of male identity: a good man is to a great extent one who provides loyally and well for his family. And our women have become adapted to this state of affairs through evolutionary pressures. Forty thousand years in Europe is equivalent to about thirteen hundred human generations. Over these generations, women with a preference for willing and capable providers have had more surviving offspring and passed this preference on to their daughters. Provisioning ability is, therefore, a key component of sexual attractiveness in men, and a man without resources or at least a clear ability to acquire them is barely even perceived by women as a man. We men do not like this, of course. We think our women should love us “for richer or for poorer,” as English marriage vows phrase it. But we cannot simply wish away thousands of years of evolutionary selection. Women are going to go right on being attracted to providers for the same reason men are attracted to youth and beauty. Women have no choice in the matter, and so men who wish to marry and raise families have no choice but to become providers.

What feminism and the ideal of “equality betwen the sexes” has done to European society has been to make women more economically self-sufficient, as the women farmers of Africa are. For women with no wish to marry or have children this has been beneficial. But there are not many such women. Most European-descended women want a secure home with a reliable husband and some children. For these women, feminism and jobs outside the home have been a disaster. It has also been a disaster for European birth rates. And here is another circumstance rarely noted: plenty of young men would sincerely like to be able to provide for a wife and family, but economic changes brought about by feminist thinking has made this much more difficult for them. Let me explain.

Before the industrial revolution most Europeans subsisted on agriculture, living and working in the same place, on the family farm. Industrial capitalism raised our standard of living, but meant that for the first time in history, people had to “go to work,” i.e., they had to labor for money in one place while they carried on their family lives in another. This raised a new issue: who, exactly, should leave home to work and earn money? From the very beginnings of industrial capitalism there have been competing answers to this question. In the view of many employers, the owners of capital, it has long seemed obvious that anyone and everyone with a desire to work and earn a salary should do so: men, women, and even children. The more people who work, after all, the richer the country will become—not to mention the capitalists themselves! In accord with this way of thinking, early industrialism was marked not only by widespread female employment outside the home, but even by child labor.

Yet not everyone agreed with the capitalists. Others believed not everything of value can be bought on the market. Specifically, family bonds and the proper rearing of children are precious goods that can only deteriorate if everyone is out competing for wages on the labor market. On this competing view, fathers should go to work to support their families, while mothers and children should remain at home protected from market competition. With fewer people working outside the home, the price of labor rises, compelling the capitalist to pay fathers the same wage he would have paid the entire family under a system where everyone worked. The capitalists get rich somewhat more slowly, but people still had homes, and society did not simply turn into a giant factory and marketplace. In the latter part of the nineteenth century and for much of the twentieth, this view largely won out. Child labor was done away with, and legal limitations were placed on women’s ability to work for money outside the home.

This was known as the family wage system, and it prevailed through the mid-twentieth century in much of the West. It is consistent with the male provisioning model Europeans have inherited from our preindustrial past. But it is not perfectly consistent with laissez-faire capitalism. It involves restricting the free play of market forces, not only by outlawing child labor but by openly and unapologetically practicing what is now known as “sex discrimination.” Under the family wage system, women were not permitted to compete against men on equal terms in many kinds of jobs, especially the most highly-paying. These were reserved for men because men were presumed to have families to support (as most of them did). Even many lower-paying jobs were open to women only as long as they remained unmarried, for a married woman’s duties were presumed to lie elsewhere.

The family wage system was far from perfect. As feminists are happy to remind us, it limited women’s choices. More importantly, in my view, it could not be tailored to the size of individual families. The same job and income that permitted one man to raise one or two children might have to stretch for another man with eight or ten. In the United States, three children came to be treated as the “normal” number for calculating a family wage, and while this has not historically been considered a large family, it at least represents a birth rate above replacement. Of course, under this system a few bachelors may get to enjoy a family wage without supporting a family at all. According to my observations, however, this is not as big a problem as one might anticipate, because the richer a bachelor gets, the harder it is for him to remain a bachelor, as he will be much desired as a husband. Women simply will not tolerate it.

For all of its imperfections, the family wage system prevailed for several generations in the United States and much of Europe, and there are still a few elderly people who can remember it. During this time, employment listings in newspapers were divided into two sections: men’s jobs and women’s jobs. There were more men’s jobs, and they usually paid better. Women did sometimes complain about this, but they also seemed to like and appreciate men more than they do today. As I said, women are preprogrammed by our evolutionary history to perceive and evaluate men as providers, so they are going to like and appreciate us more when we provide for them. Yet for us to do this, arrangements must be made to allow it. The family wage system of open workplace discrimination against women was precisely an arrangement designed to support the traditional male provider role.

And the really amazing thing is that most men find satisfaction in providing for a wife and children as long as they receive a bit of love and appreciation in return. It makes them feel needed because, under such a traditional arrangement, they are needed. Women are largely helpless in the latter stages of pregnancy and while nursing. The more children they bear, the longer their period of helplessness. So if a society wants high fertility, it must accept that there are going to be a lot of helpless women, and it must allow their husbands to care and provide for them. A man has always been able to avoid a lot of trouble and anxiety by remaining a bachelor, so well-ordered societies both make it possible for men to support families and reward those who do so with status and respect.

Since about the 1970s, however, Western society has come under the almost irresistible influence of feminism with its ideal of “equal pay for equal work.” It is important to recognize that this principle is neither new nor an invention of modern feminism. It is essentially identical to the ideal of the early capitalist bosses who wanted to see not merely our wives but even our children putting in long days at the factory. Business interests are always happy to swallow up the maximum possible amount of human labor from all sources at the lowest possible price because this increases their own profits.

Governments are also happy to have more incomes to tax. If the family wage system prevailed for such a long time, this was only at the insistence of organized labor. Neither economic theory, nor industrial power, nor political power showed any interest in protecting the family from economic competition. Also, please note that the power of organized labor was associated with the political left, not the nationalist or conservative right. In other words, the old, pre-multicultural left was not wrong about everything.

Under a feminist system that forbids “sex discrimination,” men and women are pitted against one other in competition for jobs and money rather than cooperating and complementing one another. This drives down wages for everyone and makes a stay-at-home wife an expensive luxury only the wealthiest men can afford. Virtually the only working people who benefit from this system are women with no wish to marry, such as lesbian feminists. They can earn their own money and be entirely independent of men. But I do not believe our economic and social institutions should be arranged primarily to benefit lesbians.

And the system of “equal pay for equal work” is a return not merely to the early days of industrialism, but to the West African system of female food production. In West Africa, “strong, independent” women support themselves economically and are competed for by males who often have to pay a price, bridewealth, for the often-polygynous marriage. The resulting society might be suitable for them, but not for Europeans. It is a poor match for our evolutionary history.

Feminism has been a failure even for those few women who actually attain high status and high-incomes in the workplace, since even they typically cherish a desire to marry and have children. Rationally, since they earn so much themselves, they should have less need to look to men as providers. And that is just what feminists used to promise us: once women entered the workforce, men would be relieved of part of the pressure to provide for their families, while women would come to value us more on the basis of our personal qualities and less as mere economic resources. These promises went unfulfilled because the sex instinct is innate and not rational. The evidence is very clear that the more a woman earns the greater the stress she places on finding a husband who earns even more than she does, and the harder it becomes to find such a man.

So in summary: the feminist system of allowing men and women to compete against one another for wages makes it harder for men to live up to women’s expectations in two distinct ways: first, it lowers men’s actual earnings by increasing the supply of labor, and second, it raises the level of earnings that working women expect from us. Hence an astonishing paradox of contemporary Western life: we are living in the most prosperous society in human history, and our women are furious at our perceived inadequacies as providers.

Yet it was never working men who asked for this system! As I have already mentioned, it was capitalists and feminists who wanted antidiscrimination laws and “equal pay for equal work.” Men were generally happy with the family wage system as long as their women rewarded them with a little love and appreciation. Millions of men in the West today would think they had died and gone to heaven if they could have what their grandfathers took for granted: a job that allowed them to marry and support a family. We do not have any right to demand of young men something we have made impossible for so many of them. Yet virtually no one today is advocating for a restoration of the family wage system. Most younger people do not know it ever existed. We must teach the young that it is perfectly right and proper to discriminate between the sexes for the simple reason that the sexes are different and want different things. It is time to declare feminism a failed experiment and move on from it.

Moreover, women have never done equal work and are not doing it now. Feminism has largely resulted in women performing make-work jobs that allow corporations to fill legal quotas but contribute little to the economy while also keeping the women from bearing and raising children. In America most companies now maintain unnecessary “human resources” departments where female paper-pushers can be kept busy. The best that can be said of such departments is that they may not always actively harm the companies which create them.

But the women who fill such superfluous corporate positions can contribute much more to society by returning to their natural and proper work of bearing and nurturing the rising generation. This will not only bring Western fertility rates back up to replacement level, but leave women themselves far happier. People are most content when living in accordance with the nature their evolutionary history has given them. Many young women today do not value motherhood because they literally do not know what they are missing. That is why so many are preoccupied with unrestricted abortion and ever more of the “equality” that is making them miserable when what they ought to be demanding is better wages for their husbands.

No treatment of the modern Western fertility crisis would be complete without some discussion of divorce, more specifically, of unilateral divorce on demand with mother custody. Here I should emphasize that I am not familiar with Finnish child custody law, so you may have to tailor my points to your specific national situation. But the broad trends are common across the West.

Many people today are unaware of the traditional view within European Christendom that legal custody of children belonged properly to the father, not the mother. This used to be an essential aspect of marriage, differentiating it from mere fornication or cohabitation. Women have always been free to leave their husbands, but under traditional arrangements they could not take the children with them, nor could they demand continued economic support from husbands they had abandoned, nor could they contract any new legally or religiously recognized marriage. The consequences of family abandonment were usually disastrous for a woman, so unless they were married to some sadistic monster, most wives and mothers stayed and made the best of things. But they could leave if they insisted: even in the strictest and most traditional Christian societies, marriage was never meant to be a form of imprisonment.

This began to change only in 1839 when the British Parliament devised a new legal principle known as the “tender years doctrine.” It held that in cases of marital separation, mothers should retain custody of children up to the age of seven years with the father required to continue financial support. Thirty-four years later, the tender years doctrine was extended to include all children up to the age of sixteen. The prestige of the British Empire ensured that the new thinking spread. Women acquired the right to leave their husbands and take the children with them, while husbands were still required to provide financial support for children they might not even be able to see, much less act as good fathers to.

Then, beginning in the United States in the 1940s, a new legal reform was proposed under which divorce could be granted without grounds upon petition by either spouse. In other words, reformers sought to make the marriage contract unenforceable. It ought to be obvious that this amounts to the legal abolition of marriage itself. A marriage either party can abandon at any time for any reason or for none at all is no different from cohabitation. Significantly, this reform was first proposed by an organization called The National Association of Women Lawyers. It was women, not men, who wanted to make it easier to dissolve their marriages. They would never have advocated such a change if the switch from father to mother custody had not already become almost universally accepted.

Unilateral divorce without grounds became law in the United States during the 1960s-70s. Since then, nearly half of American marriages have ended in divorce, with women making the decision in almost all cases involving children. Over the years, child support payments for divorced husbands have been made increasingly onerous, and men unable to pay can be jailed. Women can now gain all sorts of legal advantages over their former husbands simply by making wild accusations of beating and abuse, so that is exactly what many of them do.

Of course, word of this eventually gets out. This brings us up to the present and the recent emergence of a new social trend no one seems to have predicted: young men are deciding not to get married. Unforeseen as this development was, nearly all commentators are in agreement on the reasons for it: the current generation of young men is immature, irresponsible, cowardly, and simply refuses to grow up. I wish I had more time to share with you some of the abuse now being hurled at young American men for, in effect, simply trying to stay out of jail or avoid being left homeless by vindictive ex-wives. These young men are stubborn, and some refuse even to socialize with young women. Not only older people but even young women themselves are starting to become simply furious with them. Anger is not especially attractive, so the angrier the women get, the less inclined the men are to change their minds. I am genuinely curious to see how this situation is going to play out in the coming years. As they say on the internet: grab some popcorn!

So to conclude: if you want men to father a sufficient number of children, you should let them keep those children at home with them and avoid treating husbands and fathers like disposable filth to be plundered by divorce courts and adulterous ex-wives. Along with ending competition from immigrants and restoring the family income by legalizing “sex discrimination in the workplace” once again, that is my best recommendation for bringing Western fertility back to replacement level.