Devlin Talks Sex

/19 Comments/in , /by
What follows is an interview conducted by James Edwards with Dr. F. Roger Devlin, author of Sexual Utopia in Power.

* * *

James Edwards: You have dedicated a great deal of your work to offering a sociobiological critique of radical feminism and the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s, which you have argued is a utopian experiment that clashes with reality and leads to chaos. Why is this a topic that people should be more focused on?

Roger Devlin: Nations and races, like individuals, must perpetuate themselves sexually. But men are more inclined to focus on politics than on families, which they view as women’s natural concern. This works as long as women are in fact upholding the family by insisting on marriage and being faithful to their own vows. When they forsake that role to indulge in frivolous divorce and the chasing of sexual excitement for its own sake, men have no choice but to step in and restore order. This is difficult for us, both because most men do not understand women very well and because we have an extremely strong natural bias in their favor.

Edwards: Today’s society suffers from a lack of morals, confused sexual roles, high divorce and celibacy rates, childlessness, and widespread unhappiness, which you contend is linked to the breakdown of monogamy. In what ways are monogamy, family, and sexual discipline essential for societal stability?

Devlin: European man is a K-selected organism, to use the evolutionary terminology. This means that he is not very fertile, but invests heavily in the offspring he does have. A family with a father in residence is the necessary setting for such investment, which includes the transmission of a complex civilizational patrimony. The breakdown of stable pair-bonding cheats children of this inheritance and amounts to a return to barbarism.

Edwards: You point out that the welfare state, no-fault divorce, and affirmative-action feminism have basically turned the government into a substitute husband for millions of women. When did the West really start down this path—women’s suffrage, the pill, or something even earlier? And is there any historical precedent for a civilization surviving this level of sexual disorder?

Devlin: No, civilization may have begun with the imposition of monogamous marriage and will not survive its abolition. Sexual liberalization and female “equality” are symptoms of a society that had enjoyed too much prosperity for too long. When mere survival is a difficult challenge, everyone understands the importance of family solidarity and mutual duties. When times get easy, people turn to individual self-realization. Women’s suffrage, for example, was a shift from viewing the family as the basic unit of society to individualism: it is a luxury, and in no sense a matter of justice.

Edwards: Interestingly, your perspectives on this issue challenge both feminist and mainstream conservative views. How so?

Devlin: Men understand their own sexual nature, but not that of women. Male traditionalists are, therefore, inclined to assume that liberating sex means liberating men’s desires at women’s expense. Hence the conservative press is filled with endless sanctimonious denunciations of young men as predators. In fact, anthropologists have long known that in primitive hunter-gatherer societies where monogamy is not enforced, 60% of men are unable to become fathers. Nature puts women, not men, in charge of mating, and whenever they are liberated from monogamy, they simply mate with the highest-status men. Monogamous marriage exists not to restrict the amount of sex men are able to get, but precisely to provide sex (and families) for as many men as possible. For non-elite men the sexual revolution has meant not more sex but a greater difficulty, or even an outright impossibility, of finding a wife. This is one of the best-kept secrets of the past half-century due to men’s reluctance to complain about it.

Edwards: You’ve noted that we now live in a world that offers promiscuity for the few and loneliness for the many. Who really loses the most in this new order?

Devlin: Both men and women lose out, but it is children who lose the most, in the form of fatherlessness. Until we initiated this great experiment of sexual liberation, we had no idea just how important fathers were to the proper development of children. Nearly every social pathology you can name is exacerbated by fatherlessness. And fatherlessness is overwhelmingly due not to men being irresponsible deadbeat dads (as the welfare state falsely claims) but to women indulging in two vices: 1) sex outside of marriage and 2) frivolous divorce.

Edwards: Let’s talk about the campus rape hysteria you dissect so brilliantly. We’re told there is an epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses, yet the statistics you cite tell a completely different story. Is this whole narrative just a weapon to demonize normal male sexuality and justify more anti-male policies?

Devlin: Much of it is exactly that, driven by lesbians in women’s studies programs. Young women are impressionable, and the campus lesbians want them fearing and mistrusting men. Women’s studies is a radical and destructive political and sexual movement, not a legitimate field of academic study, and it needs to be abolished (not reformed). The narrative of young men as ruthless predators, by the way, is virtually identical whether produced by man-hating lesbian feminists or male traditionalists.

It might also help to inform young women that throwing themselves at the handsomest guy on campus is not the route to love and “commitment.” It should be obvious that if women insist on exceptionally attractive mates, they will be forced to share them; this is due to simple arithmetic, and not to men being scoundrels.

Edwards: No white nation in the world currently enjoys replacement level fertility. How does everything we have been discussing tie into the demographic decline we talk about so often — the falling birthrates among our people?

Devlin: Where men are in charge, women have babies; where women are in charge, they fornicate and abort — as we have learned by putting women in charge for a few decades. The solution should be obvious: put men back in charge of the family! Women may be left free to choose a husband, but only subject to two constraints: 1) that the man not already have been chosen by another woman, and 2) that they stick to their choice for life — and not just until they get bored or imagine they could do better on a second try (seldom true in any case).

Sexual equality in the workplace simultaneously lowers men’s wages by increasing the supply of labor, and raises women’s expectations of how much a man ought to earn in order to be a “good provider.” Moreover, the women who best succeed in the world of work are those who can suppress their natural femininity and remain childless. It is thus a complete disaster for Western civilization. Sexual discrimination in employment should be not merely legal but mandatory.

Edwards: With Tinder, OnlyFans, and Instagram turning every halfway-attractive woman into a mini-celebrity, many “regular guys” are checking out of the dating scene altogether. Couple that with the onset of artificial intelligence giving men the option to have simulated relationships with programs that still trigger chemical releases in the brain in the same way that authentic relationships do, and hyper-realistic synthetic “females” coming in the very near future, how much worse could this get?

Devlin: Without wishing to defend pornography or other sex substitutes per se, I see some justification for men preferring them to actual women under current conditions. The dangers of divorce, deprivation of one’s children, and extortionate child support orders are so great that men are correct not to stick their necks into the noose of modern marriage. I hope to see more men shunning marriage, dating, and women altogether until women get the message good and hard. It is only just beginning to register with them, I am afraid. Most people only learn through suffering, so a lot more suffering is going to be necessary.

Edwards: Is there any realistic way back from this, or are we stuck?

Devlin: Besides an end to “equal pay for equal work,” unilateral divorce must be abolished. No man should marry when his life can be ruined at any instant at the whim of a fickle or vindictive woman.

Edwards: What message do you have for young men and women who want to build strong families in spite of the culture?

Devlin: For young women, my advice is to accept any man with a working set of sexual organs still naïve enough to get married, and to cling to him for dear life. For most men, as I have made clear, my advice is not to date or marry. And above all, do not give your hard-earned money to Only Fans whores. Life in this declining civilization is still just about tolerable for those men who escape the maw of the family court system. Women have been telling us for decades that they need us the way a fish needs a bicycle. Now they are finally going to have the opportunity to prove it.

As for all the advocates of traditional marriage out there who think I am being too radical: just you wait. When millions of women finally realize they have no realistic prospect of obtaining any husband — and this is where we are headed — things will change so fast it will make your head spin.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. For more than 20 years, his radio work has been featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide. Media Matters has listed Edwards as a “right-wing media fixture” and Hillary Clinton personally named him as an “extremist” who would shape our country.

Attack of the Cat Ladies

/14 Comments/in , /by

America has been invaded but not by a foreign force. No, this invasion is much more insidious. America has been invaded and subverted from within. A female army of obnoxious, humorless, censorious, scolds and shrews has slithered out from beneath various rocks to occupy, moderate and control all thought, speech and behavior public and private.

The foot soldiers in this army are called cat ladies. They run the churches, schools, drama groups, choirs, orchestras, garden clubs, book clubs, libraries, town boards and fire and police departments  — everything. As a result, America has been feminized. It is all yin and no yang. It is plagued with an epidemic of feigned cuteness, pretend niceness and all too genuine incompetence. Kamala Harris (a woman noted for nothing but her ability to advance in politics by pleasing powerful, California-Democrat men from her knees) is the clueless, incoherent leader of the cat ladies. The late Jewess Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is their patron saint.

The genus “Femina felina Americana” is not new. It first appeared in the early 19th century when female social reformers harangued men about money, marriage and meat. Then came the abolitionists led by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Her novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin played a crucial role in inciting Northern hatred of all things Southern thereby fueling The Civil War aka The War of Northern Aggression. Ironically, before writing her novel, Harriet had never been to the South or seen a planation. But, in classic cat lady style, her ignorance didn’t stop Harriet from holding forth on a subject of which she knew nothing.  The Scottish cat lady Fanny Wright was a racial reformer of even more spectacular stupidity. Neshoba, her mixed-race utopian commune, collapsed under the weight of the first winter snow and the tug of racial reality.  Our Fanny then skedaddled back to Europe where she was kept by a much older man –  the Marquis de Lafayette. Funny how often these proto-feminist heroines managed to find Sugar Daddys.

Those harridans were followed by the temperance hags whose leader Carry Nation smashed up perfectly good saloons with hatchets thus giving us the term “old battle axe.” Then the singularly charmless Margaret Sanger emerged in the 20th century to lead the birth control movement called Planned Parenthood. Like her British counterpart Marie Stopes, Sanger had a failed marriage. Sanger also failed to look after her own children while having many affairs with powerful men and dabbling in spiritualism. I suspect she attended seances to contact her offspring who died from neglect. Welp… that’s one form of birth control, I guess.

Franklin Roosevelt, one of America’s most disastrous presidents, compounded his sins by foisting his repugnant, loudmouth wife Eleanor on an unsuspecting public. Due to polio, FDR was practically a helpless invalid from 1935 on so Eleanor served as Madam President for almost 10 years. At the same time, she used her newspaper columns and radio programs to explain to America just how wrong it was about just about everything. By the way, Ellie was a secret lesbian. But then, cripple though he was, FDR managed to jump the bones of his secretary and cousin so…

In the late 1960s, “second wave” feminism reared its decidedly Jewish head and created the current generation of aging, childless, single, obese, blue haired, tattooed, pierced and miserable creatures called cat ladies. The Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce brilliantly observed, “There is nothing sadder than an aging hipster.” Man was he right. These gals are not  happy campers. They cut a pathetic figure in their self-consciously ethnic attire accessorized with clunky earrings made by indigenous jewelers and carrying a hemp tote bag emblazoned with the sayings of Maya Angelou, Harriet Tubman or Cher. They are obviously disappointed by life, furious about the mistakes they made (especially the tattoos and piercings) and determined to take their misery out on everyone else – especially men. Their regret fuels the unhinged, petulant rage they display whenever they don’t get their way.  You can see their hilarious and horrifying fury in full flow at any protest du jour.

With no children or men in their lives, these sad singletons had no outlet for their natural nurturing instinct. But they did have excess leisure time to run around with their pink hair on fire proselytizing for every harebrained do-gooder fad that came their way. Queer rights. Animal rights. Trans rights. Plant rights. Free abortions. Free Palestine. Free any negro currently incarcerated for anything anywhere.

They sat on their substantial backsides gorging on Cheetos and chardonnay while having their substantial egos stroked by female TV chat show hosts who validated their every imagined slight, social justice mania or hypochondriacal concern. And because they were neither as intelligent or well educated as they believed, they fell for every health and beauty scam advertised while complaining that it was men who obsessed about women’s bodies.

Enter – Oprah Winfrey. She came on the scene in the 1990s. Her Jewish handlers did a brilliant job of marketing this fat, no-talent, dimwit as an “Everywoman” who shared every woman’s pain. Oprah was perfect for this role because she had weight and relationship problems and she wasn’t very bright — just like her audience. So she was relatable and non-threatening. Plus, she was black which gave White women a chance to virtue signal that they weren’t racist. (Soon after Oprah appeared,  Barack Obama rode that same White guilt train into The Oval Office.)

All the chat shows consist of cat ladies sitting on sofas clutching each other’s hands as they weep together and play a game of “Can you top my misery?” This is just a TV version of the newspaper advice columns written by  “Sob Sisters” and “Agony Aunts.” Hillary Clinton’s handlers knew who her voting block was so they ran presidential campaign commercials that mimicked this scenario. She was featured sitting on a sofa in a cozy living room set with a fire crackling in the background. You could smell the bread baking. And with legs curled casually beneath her she purred, “Let’s have a chat?” Yeah, a chat. See, running the country is  just one big  coffee klatsch between us girls. We don’t need those nasty men no way, no how. (Please observe that when the Left says, “Let’s chat” or “It’s time for a national conversation” they mean, “Shut up! I’ll do the talking.”)

Since Hillary’s campaign, we have seen an ever-increasing feminization of American political discourse. Now, it is all about feelings. Consider – at its heart, the Harris presidential campaign was an attack on Trump for not being “nice” and daring to challenge  Kamala’s obvious right to the presidency because she was black and a woman. Worse — Trump dared to be unashamedly male and to bristle with testosterone.

Social media, especially Facebook, is the “Hall of Lies” where cat ladies  stroke each other. But I promise you that if every woman had to be truthful on Facebook for one day, this female fantasy world would crumble. As it is, in “Facebookland” every woman is assured by her thousands of Facebook girlfriends that she looks beautiful in her latest outfit or facelift. Every day is a good hair day.  Every woman’s child is a genius and gorgeous. Every performance given is virtuoso. And no woman’s butt ever looks big in any dress. Ever. This bubble of hysterical happiness is fueled with Oxycodone, Ozempic and Ouzo. Yes, Madam definitely enjoys a tipple or two or three.

In the universe of cat ladies every woman and child (Men need not apply) wins a participation medal for every act in daily life no matter how banal. Eating breakfast and having a bowel movement garners fulsome praise and multiple smile emojis. (Where would cat ladies be without cutesy-wutesy emojis?) The lowest common denominator is the highest standard.  Criticism (at least outspoken) is forbidden. Meanwhile, in private, these cat ladies can be as catty as anyone. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “Women only call each other sister when they have called each other a lot of other things first.”

Horrible to report — this pseudo-saccharin sorority of psycho-sexual misfits has a strangle hold on education. And, you guessed it, academic achievement has nose-dived. I have been told by two female College Deans at two different universities to “go easy” on my students since “The students don’t respond well to criticism.” Hmnnn… would you want to be treated by a surgeon who had been pampered that way in med school?

This removal of masculinity from American life has also undermined government at federal, state and local level. Don’t believe me? Listen to a speech by any of the women in Congress of either party. Research the many, many black, female Mayors, Fire Chiefs and Police Chiefs that pollute the American landscape. Watch these cretins address the press while sporting outrageous ‘hood rat hair weaves and enameled fingernails longer than an eagle’s talons. (I wonder how they complete certain bodily functions without slicing their nether regions to bloody bits!)

Ask yourself how many bodies these morbidly obese couch potatoes have carried out of a burning apartment and down a ladder or how many violent criminals they have disarmed and wrestled to the ground. But as these Affirmative Action airheads struggle to complete a simple declarative sentence in comprehensible English you are not allowed to laugh or even notice. Yet, there they sit. Entrenched by DEI. Shielded from criticism by the cat ladies. Even if fired, these nitwits will get a Golden Parachute sweeter than any you can ever hope of receiving.

But the worst result of Americas retreat from sexual sanity is how  the benign “Soccer Moms” of yesteryear have morphed into the “Castrating Cat Lady Moms” of today. I see them in the supermarket with their sissified, soy boy sons. These boys never had a chance. Mom has fed them nothing but crap since the cradle and as a result they are sporting man boobs at age nine. They have obviously never thrown or kicked a ball. Dad has flown the coop and left Junior in the clutches of a woman with serious man issues. You bet Junior might pretend to be a girl to avoid mommy’s rage and maybe even win her approval. Cue: hormone “therapy” followed by cross dressing and eventually genital mutilation. If you think this sounds melodramatic, you haven’t been watching the family dynamics around gender reassignment surgery for minors. It’s the mothers who, in effect, wield the scalpel.

Not as horrific but still emblematic of the disease and just downright annoying is the glut of female sportscasters who know nothing about sports — “The team that scores the most runs will win this game. Back to the studio.” And the inane news babes – “The candidate with the most votes will win this election. Back to the studio.”  (Hand to heart, I have actually heard both of those quips.)

Older readers may recognize that I am making many of the same points about the American female as those made by Philip Wylie in his brilliantly venomous diatribe A Generation of Vipers (1943). So not only have cat ladies been with us for far too long but they have been identified and dissected by a brave few male anthropologists — your humble reporter among them.

But wait. Put down that vial of hemlock. Mother Nature always has the last word and laugh. As Shakespeare put it, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Indeed. As much as the cat ladies claim to despise traditional female roles and values their behavior suggests otherwise. Case in point — at a recent country music camp yours truly attended, there were more than the minimum daily requirement of lesbians present. Several of these “Sapphic Sadies” sported beards. Yet hirsute though they were, they were anxious to learn the most traditional form of country music – ballads derived from Celtic songs that were derived from medieval madrigals. These achingly romantic songs speak of knights in armor, fair maidens, courtly love and chivalry i.e. every little girl’s dream.

In publishing, the leading genre is romance novels. These books are churned out to formulas that suit various education levels. They are written to templates that specify settings, professions, names, locales, periods and levels of eroticism. But the plots are always “damsel in distress” or “Cinderella.”  There is even a sub-genre of romance novel – Amish Romance. The covers of these books feature impossibly good-looking models dressed in Amish drag making goo-goo eyes at each other over a butter churn. This proves that women yearn not only for love with a man but love with a man in a traditional societal context. Never mind that in reality the Amish are the least attractive and least romantic society on earth – with the exception of the Satmar Jews. And all this literary tripe is catnip to cat ladies. One look at the cat ladies who control publishing will make all things literary abundantly clear.

In film and television, romantic-comedies (rom-coms) are the leading genre. I blush to confess that I have been prominently featured in several of these treacly abominations. As a result, I am regularly recognized and asked for selfies and autographs by uber-masculine Lesbyterians. They squeal that they and their mothers watch the films together over and over and they cry every time. Note to the curious: These films are all modern-day versions of Cinderella. (Anyone else see a pattern here?)

I can attest that the America I left in 1990 was not riddled with autism and gender dysphoria. But the America to which I returned in 2021 had become a nightmare world where women hated men and men were too beaten down and bored to care. (Think of that Incel nonsense.) Call me paranoid but I’m ready to believe the conspiracy theory that “they” have been putting something in the water or food or vaccines. Somehow or other this  country’s mojo has been messed with.

Still I sense that men and women have some species memory of how things ought to be. Even those suffering from gender dysphoria hunger for the natural order. Note that they aren’t trying to do away with male and female roles just to switch places.  Meanwhile, they vicariously slake their hunger for romance and adventure with books, movies and computer games.  I believe that hunger can be stoked back to a healthy, happy generative heat if we can clear our minds and bodies of the poisons and filth that modern Jewified culture has placed there.

I believe that within every odious cat lady there is a Sleeping Beauty. I believe that within every soy boy there is a Prince Charming. Now all we have to do is get these two crazy kids together and let nature take its course.  You may think I’ve been watching too many rom-coms myself. But it is an awful truth that we must have a rebirth of Adam and Eve or we must perish.

Jack Antonio resides in rural America. He is the author of Boy Outa Brooklyn — a murder memoir. It is available on Amazon as a paperback and e-book and from all major e-book distributors. Or visit Jack’s blog at https://boyoutabrooklyn.com/blog/

Attack of the Cat Ladies was originally published in issue 127 of Heritage and Destiny magazine 40 Birkett Drive Preston PR2 6HE England – www.heritageanddestiny.com

The Treatment of Prince Andrew Proves We Live in a World Run by Bullying Schoolgirls

/6 Comments/in , /by

Like the previously posted article on Helen Andrews’ “The Great Feminization,” Ed Dutton’s article also deals with the feminization of culture, also citing Joyce Benenson’s Warriors and Worriers.

Things have moved fast in the Royal Family since I reviewed the book Entitled for this publication; the book proving beyond reasonable doubt that Prince Andrew is a liar, happily associates with and takes money from a convicted paedophile, is a statutory rapist and is a supreme Narcissist. Despite his maintaining that he “vigorously denies” the allegations against him, Prince Andrew paid off his accuser, Virginia Roberts, and has now gone even further. Now an email to Jeffrey Epstein has come to light in which Prince Andrew wrote to sex offender, “We’re in this together.” The King has swiftly reacted. The way he has done so, however, is a fascinating reflection of just how feminized the West has become.

As American psychologist Joyce Benenson has explored in her book Warriors and Worriers, males and females punish transgressions in markedly different ways, and this also extends over into the way in which they bully each other. Men are evolved to create large coalitions to fight for the interests of the group; in effect, to create armies. If you seriously break the rules, then you will be punished, often physically as seen in the floggings that were common in the British Army until the twentieth century. Once you are punished, then it is over and the group moves on, almost as though the transgression and the punishment never happened. If your crime is especially egregious – such as cowardice – then you were executed, usually with a priest present, as English journalist Tim Stanley has pointed out in the Daily Telegraph “We don’t know how to handle Prince Andrew because we no longer understand sin.” The Church, which is intimately connected to the Army, forgives you and we move on.

Stanley further observes that, “In place of retribution, which we’ve decided is cruel, we isolate and ostracise the accused,” and that punishment has been replaced by the far crueller system of “cancellation.” However, he fails to mention the obvious reason for this shift, which is the rise in the influence of females. As Benenson observes, women do not “punish” in the conventional, male sense; they exclude. Women are evolved to be part of part of a system centred around dominant males. They create closely bonded cliques of a small number of “alloparents” to help raise their children; the Alpha male often gradually neglects them in favour of the newest and most nubile wife. In that their children are involved, these cliques must be based around complete trust and equality, so they bond by sharing intimate information; by being “vulnerable” with each other.

Women are physically weaker and a fight is dangerous because if they are killed, then their child may die from neglect. Women therefore seek safety. Moreover, the entire system of punishment is different. It involves being “cancelled,” excluded from the parties with the popular girls, shamed, whispered about and, generally, excluded. This is a far more vicious way of punishing because it is, potentially, without end: there is no forgiveness, there is no moving on, it is never “over with” and the process – of being excluded – is the punishment.

Of course, some people don’t care about being excluded by the Leftist elite, something the left, being feminine, find incomprehensible. They have no “shame” and they find a new clique of which to be part; the growing right-wing counter-elite which has welcomed ex-Leftists such as the comedy writer Graham Linehan, who criticised the Trans insanity. This is what you must do in the world of girls; you must find a new “clique” to protect you.

Prince Andrew has been treated in exactly this “female” way by his brother, the King. Rather than being punished by being stripped of his military honours and the titles of “His Royal Highness” and the Duke of York, he has voluntarily renounced his military honours and agreed not to use the prenominal “His Royal Highness” and, as of October 2025, not to use his title of Duke of York. In other words, despite what some newspaper commentators are wrongly saying, Prince Andrew has not been “stripped of his titles.” He has agreed not to use them but, legally, he is still “His Royal Highness,” because he is the son of the Queen, and he is still “the Duke of York” and he will remain so unless the King formally strips him of this title, which would require an Act of Parliament.

Put simply, Prince Andrew hasn’t been punished – nothing has been taken from him. He has been pressured to relinquish things or stop being open about things he still possesses, such as the Dukedom of York. This may be seen as a benevolent compromise for Prince Andrew; his royalty is very important to him and this process means that his ego is not too badly hurt. He gets to be in control and can say to himself, “I am His Royal Highness, the Duke of York, but I merely choose not be publically styled as such.”

However, this also means that he hasn’t really been punished at all and that there can be no “moving on.” He will spend his life in this limbo where can attend some royal events but not others, where he is royal but not fully. I suspect this, itself, reflects the female focus on “harm avoidance.” To really punish Prince Andrew would be to overtly harm him, which might make the punisher look “mean;” the ultimate sin the world of women — an egregious sign of lack of empathy. Much better to covertly harm him; harm him, but with plausible deniability.

If Prince Andrew could simply be punished, by being stripped of his dukedom for example, then society could move on and perhaps Prince Andrew could live out his days doing charity in order to atone for his behaviour. But, it seems, the UK is too feminized for this happen. In a world run by women, he is to be excluded from the party run by the “glossy posy.” It will be Purgatory. Forever.

Helen Andrews: The Great Feminization

/5 Comments/in , /by
The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.
This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?

Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).

A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.

The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.

Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.

The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.

Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.

Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.

One book that helped me put the pieces together was Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Benenson. She theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits, formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in a modern psychology lab, in a study that Benenson cites, observed that a group of men given a task will “jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,” and then “cheerfully relay a solution to the experimenter.” A group of women given the same task will “politely inquire about one another’s personal backgrounds and relationships … accompanied by much eye contact, smiling, and turn-taking,” and pay “little attention to the task that the experimenter presented.”

The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males. That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.

Continues …

 

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.