The Arts and Culture

Tony Paulsen: Thoughts on the British General Election

/8 Comments/in , /by

Tony Paulsen: Here are some thoughts on the British general election — not, you will note, an ex cathedra pronouncement! [Editor’s Note: In his current TOO article, Alex Kurtagic thinks it was all a waste of time.]

I’ll begin with the system parties, and move on to the patriotic right.

It’s strange to see a three horse race in which all three horses lose, but Lib/Lab/Con have managed this remarkable feat. Labour have lost 91 seats in our 650 seat Parliament, while the system’s much hyped faux alternative, the Liberals, lost five seats, rather than make the large gains predicted before the poll. They now hold 57 seats.

The Conservative party, standing on a manifesto of change (think about that for a Conservative party!) gained 97 seats, and now hold 306, but are twenty short of an overall majority.

One seat remains vacant, as a candidate died during the campaign. A bye-election will be held in a few weeks, when the Conservatives should take the seat, pushing them up to 307.

Outside Ulster, which has its own political dynamic, the only minor party to gain a seat was the Greens (more on them anon), while the sole Independent in Parliament lost his, despite being much praised as an honourable and competent member.

The Democratic Unionist Party holds eight Ulster seats, after losing East Belfast, one of the most staunchly Protestant and Unionist seats in Northern Ireland, to the very liberal Alliance party on a three way split in the Unionist vote, exacerbated by the scandals surrounding land deals involving DUP leader Peter Robinson and his wife. The three way split in Unionism also cost the Unionist parties South Belfast. Lady Hermon sits as an Independent Unionist for North Down, making nine Unionists in the House of Commons.

Even supposing the Tories (Conservatives) could persuade all nine Unionists to support them reliably, they would still be eleven seats short of an overall majority, so they are negotiating with the Liberals.

Personally, if I were in Tory leader David Cameron’s shoes, I would thank my lucky stars that I did not have to take office and impose an austerity budget of unprecedented severity on a populace not exactly enured to hardship. I would seek to manoeuvre the Liberals into a coalition with Labour, so that they can reap the odium that will follow.

Such however appears to be Cameron’s vanity and his unbridled desire for office at any price that he may rush in where others might fear to tread, unless, of course, his present courtship of the Liberals is a Machiavellian manoeuvre designed to drive them into the arms of Labour when he eventually fails to propose marriage!

Moving on to the performance of the patriotic right, there are basically three contenders in the field. Two are essentially civic nationalists, the United Kingdom Independence Party and the English Democrats.

The EDs, whose ostensible concern is to obtain a devolved Parliament for England, but whose real objective is the end of the Union, and independence for England, performed terribly. I need waste no more time on them.

UKIP, whose original purpose was to oppose British membership of the European union, but which has tried to rebrand itself as a more broadly based party of the populist right, opposing further immigration into England, is a much more formidable force than the hopeless EDs. It polled 917,832 votes across the country.

Nevertheless, these votes were thinly spread, and nowhere did it approach winning a seat under out “first past the post” system.

Last year, UKIP came second in England and Wales in the elections to the European parliament, after the Conservatives, but ahead of the ruling Labour party, an extraordinary performance. This year, most of those voters plainly went back to the Conservative party, whence they came.

It is tolerably clear that UKIP can only win really big votes in elections to a parliament of whose existence it theoretically disapproves, an unusual state of affairs to say the least.

The BNP made a huge electoral effort, contesting 339 of the 650 seats in Parliament and polling 563,743 votes.

One mystery is what possessed Nick Griffin to contest 339 seats. There was no obvious purpose in contesting more than the number needed to secure a broadcast on television and radio (in England, political parties may not buy air time. The television and radio stations, whether state or privately owned, must provide a certain amount of free air time to each party contesting more than a minimum number of seats, I believe c. 110, so it would have made sense to fight c. 120 seats to allow for errors in filling in the nomination papers: similar arrangements obtain in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on local television and radio. Obviously the number of seats involved in those countries is far smaller).

The contrast with the Green party, which enjoys roughly similar electoral support to the BNP, could not be starker. The Greens concentrated their limited resources in one or two constituencies in which they are particularly strong, and took a seat, their first ever win at this level.

The BNP leadership on the other hand was overcome by hubris in the run up to this election, and nemesis duly followed.

Nick Griffin had thought that he might win the Barking (East London) seat from the Labour incumbent, Margaret Hodge, née Oppenheimer, scion of a wealthy Jewish family that fled Germany in the 1930s.

In the event, his share of the vote fell from the 16% that the BNP polled in the 2005 election to 14%, and he trailed in third after the Conservative candidate. Hodge was triumphantly re-elected.

Griffin’s deputy, the enigmatic Simon Darby (widely known in movement circles as 5IMon because of his alleged role as an agent of our equivalent of the FBI, MI5) failed to take Stoke on Trent Central, another seat that the BNP had high hopes of actually winning. Instead, he came fourth.

In a dénouement worthy of the book of Esther, “Haman’s sons”, the twelve BNP councillors on Barking council, all lost their seats in the local elections held on the same day.

Up and down the land, BNP councillors lost their seats in the worst electoral reverse that the movement has ever suffered (in fairness, mainly because until recently it never got more than one or two stray councillors elected, so didn’t have seats to lose).

It is plain that the party’s abandonment of the once successful strategy of concentrating on sinking deep local roots in carefully selected communities that are more receptive to its message than the mass of the people at this stage in its development in favour of a massive effort at national level has failed completely.

So what are the positives? (Yes, there are some!). Well, to poll 563,743 votes in 339 of the 650 seats suggests that there are about 1,000,000 people willing to vote BNP in the United Kingdom, even under an electoral system that makes a vote for a minor party a wasted vote in most constituencies, so that most electors choose whichever of the major parties they dislike less.

Were we one day to move to a more proportional system (not unlikely, as the Liberals will demand it as the price of their participation in a coalition) it is plausible that a phalanx of nationalists would eventually enter the establishment’s sanctum sanctorum. Of course the system parties will try to rig the electoral system to exclude nationalists, but it is difficult to do that, especially in times of serious economic hardship that make radical alternatives to the existing system more appealing to the people.

On the down side, morale in BNP circles will now slump in the short term and not easily be revived. At the end of this year, the party will almost inevitably lose members (it has a “churn” rate of c. 25%, that is to say, one in four does not renew at each year end: this year it is hardly plausible that new members will join to replace those who leave).

It will be interesting to see how the party membership now views its leadership, and whether any credible challenger to Nick Griffin emerges.

The party’s strained finances are under investigation by the authorities after it failed its audit last year, while the 2009 accounts are shortly due. Quite why vast sums of money have been sent “over the water” to its strange Northern Ireland based fund-raiser, “the Rev.” Jim Dowson, a bogus evangelist straight out of Elmer Gantry, is one of the many questions that will have to be addressed in those accounts.

Whether the party can put its financial affairs in order remains to be seen, and will be a crucial factor in determining whether the BNP continues under its present leadership, or drops its pilot (who won’t go willingly).

Tony Paulsen is a pen name.

Tom Sunic: Announcing Postmorten Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity

/31 Comments/in /by

Author: Tomislav Sunic
Foreword: Kevin MacDonald
Title: Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity (Collected Essays)
ISBN: 978-0-9561835-2-1
Pages: 224
Imprint: The Palingenesis Project
Publication: 11 February 2010
List Price: £14.99
Edition: Paperback
Publisher’s Webpage
Amazon Webpage
 
Tomislav Sunic is one of the leading scholars and exponents of the European New Right. A prolific writer and accomplished linguist in Croatian, English, French, and German, his thought synthesizes the ideas of Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Vilfredo Pareto, and Alain de Benoist, among others, exhibiting an elitist, neo-pagan, traditionalist sensibility. A number of themes have emerged in his cultural criticism: religion, cultural pessimism, race and the Third Reich, liberalism and democracy, and multiculturalism and communism. This book collects Dr. Sunic’s best essays of the past decade, treating topics that relate to these themes. From the vantage point of a European observer who has experienced the pathology of liberalism and communism on both sides of the Iron Curtain, Dr. Sunic offers incisive insights into Western and post-communist societies and culture. Always erudite and at times humorous, this highly readable postmortem report on the death of the West offers a refreshing, alternative perspective to what is usually found in the cavaderous Freudo-Marxian scholasticism that rots in the dank catacombs of postmodern academia.

Bookmark and Share

Why Has Mahler Become a Cultural Icon?

/41 Comments/in , , /by

R. J. Stove has a delightful article on Mahler posted at the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation:

The Mahler symphonies … get me out of here. I keep surreptitiously cheering Kingsley Amis’s verdict “Mahler lacks talent even more spectacularly than he lacks genius.” …

The leap in Mahler’s stature from near-oblivion in 1960 (when, as Britain’s Spectatornoted on January 13, “[H]is impact on the general public was roughly the equivalent of, say, [Poland’s Karol] Szymanowski today”) to deification after that date, has little or nothing to do with musical merits and almost everything to do with external considerations.

And what might these external circumstances be?

Once it became widely known that Mahler had lamented being “a Bohemian in Austria, an Austrian in Germany, and a Jew in the world,” his identity-politics credentials became the aesthetic equivalent of a nuclear warhead, lacking only homosexuality to complete his posthumous triumph.

With the exception of a few musicians enthralled with the challenge of playing his music, the people who love Mahler love him because of who he is, not because they enjoy listening to his music.

Mahler has been the subject of TOO articles by E. R. E. Knutsson and Elizabeth Whitcombe. Knutsson described the Jewishness of Mahler’s music in the context of the fin de siècle cultural scene of Vienna: “It has been arguedthat Mahler’s music has links back to the Hasidic music of Eastern European ghettos of the eighteenth century in which dance music is deployed as a remedy to misery.” An anti-Jewish critic at the complained, “What I find so utterly repellent about Mahler’s music is the pronounced Jewishness of its underlying character. … It is abhorrent to me because it speaks Yiddish. In other words it speaks the language of German music but with an accent, with the intonation and above all with the gestures of the Easterner, the all-too-Eastern Jew.”

Whitcombe links Mahler to T. W. Adorno: “Adorno claimed that the bourgeois musical world was repressing Mahler’s work because Mahler shunned ‘moderate peacefulness.’ In Adorno’s words: ‘The genuine significance of Mahler that can be discovered for today lies in the very violence with which he broke out of the same musical space that today wants to forget him’ (Mahler Today,” 1930).”

Stove’s comment does not get into the details of how Mahler became so important. I suspect that an argument can be made that Mahler’s incredible success since the 1960s has to do with ethnic networking and with peculiarly Jewish attitudes toward culture. The topic deserves a full treatment.

Mahler’s visibility these days is truly phenomenal. Leon Botstein labels Mahler “the most visible figure from the high-art classical music tradition since Mozart.” Whereas in the 1930s Adorno complained that Mahler was on the verge of being forgotten, by the 1960s the intellectual landscape had changed dramatically, bringing to the fore the intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique, including Adorno’s Frankfurt School.  By several accounts, the two most important advocates of Mahler during the 1960s were Adorno and conductor Leonard Bernstein. Adorno’s campaign on behalf of Mahler did not bear fruit until his influential 1960 book Mahler: A Musical Physiognamy. An historian notes, “The effect [of Adorno’s book] on the cultivated, on many musicologists, on composers, has been immense.” The Culture of Critique shows that Adorno had a strong Jewish identity and a hostility toward traditional Western culture (viewed as inevitably leading to fascism and anti-Semitism) that colored all of his writing.  In his view, Mahler was attractive because he was the antithesis of the traditional muscial culture of the West. (The same can be said of Adorno’s attempt to promote Arnold Schoenberg; see TOO’s Knutsson and Whitcombe.)  Re Bernstein, Botstein notes that “Bernstein was Mahler’s most prodigious advocate in the seminal 1960s…. Bernstein implicitly set Mahler’s ambivalence to his fate as a Jew alongside his own proud assertion of Jewish identity and faith.”

The result was that Mahler has become a sainted icon of the new culture — another example of Jewish genius. Even if no one really enjoys listening to his music.

Bookmark and Share

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon: Multiculturalism — An Open Letter to Israel Shamir

/125 Comments/in , , /by

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon:  A few weeks Israel Shamir wrote a controversial essay called The Poverty of Racialist Thought in which he took issue with Kevin MacDonald on the subject of multiculturalism. Yesterday I received from him (in an email) an advance copy of his recent follow-up essay: Part 2 of The Poverty of Racialist Thought. He was kind enough to seek my opinion on his new essay, along with the opinions of eight other people far more qualified than myself. 

As I understood this to be an open invitation to discussion, it occurred to me to send my reply to Mr Shamir for publication to the Occidental Observer. I thought the feedback from commentators here could only be beneficial to all concerned: to myself, to Kevin MacDonald and, above all, to Mr Shamir. 

Please note that Part 2 of Shamir’s article has not yet been published. This critique of mine addresses issues raised mostly in Part 1 — see the link above — but which are alluded to and further developed in Part 2.

Dear Mr. Shamir: I read your recent essay, The Poverty of Racialist Thought, with great interest. It is crackling with original ideas, many of them highly subversive, as one would expect from a controversial writer such as yourself!  The main bone of contention between you and Kevin MacDonald is obviously multiculturalism. This is a subject I’ve alluded to only briefly and tangentially in my articles, while dealing mostly with other topics. 

I have enormous respect for KMD, a man who is not only moved to pity by the plight of the Palestinians but who is also deeply concerned at the way his fellow Americans are having their traditional culture subverted and alien values thrust upon them—values which, I think you will agree, are positively satanic: namely, contempt for Christianity, sexual perversion, mind pollution and mendacity in the media, the uglification of daily life, and the systematic demoralization of the masses.    

I feel strongly, as I know you do, about the double standards involved in the fact that organized Jewry promotes multiculturalism in America while insisting that Israel should remain  monocultural and Judeocentric. It’s also of great concern that racial tensions between various ethnic groups in America should be deliberately ignited in order to distract and debilitate the different groups at the expense of the Master group — organized Jewry. It is considerations like these which undoubtedly exercise KMD’s mind and the minds of all Americans who feel they are “losing their country.”  

To portray these beleaguered White Americans  as “White Supremacists” or “racists” is, in my humble opinion,  a low and dirty trick. As disgraceful as calling critics of racist, apartheid Israel with its black record of war crimes — men like Judge Goldstone — “anti-Semites”.  

I do believe with total sincerity, however, that the use of the word “White” is a tragic mistake — from a public relations viewpoint, if no other — and that this word should be avoided if possible.  “This word ‘WHITE’ is the bugbear,” I wrote to KMD a few months ago. “If only a less abrasive and more emollient equivalent could be found.”  You echoed my own sentiments when you said to me in a previous email: “Whites are indeed a misnomer and KMD should give thought how to change it. Christians? Logos believers? Let us give it a thought and share it with KMD.” 

I have racked my brains for a suitable alternative to “Whites”, but have been unable to find one. I don’t think “Christians” would satisfy KMD  with all that that term connotes now. It has to be clearly understood that KMD does not view this matter of multiculturalism, as you and E. Michael Jones do, through the prism of religion. His training as an evolutionary psychologist gives him an entirely different perspective. It’s all about different races competing for resources in a cut-throat Darwinian environment. It’s also about the chronic conflicts that multicultural/multiracial societies have been prone to throughout history and about the psychological reality that people tend to become isolated, politcally disengaged, and mistrustful in multicultural/multiracial societies. He points out that no one has come up with a way to get rid of race as a touchstone of conflict within human societies, and he just doesn’t see that happening in the future.

Between the biological approach of KMD (genetic interests meshing with cultural constraints) and the metaphysical approach of E Michael Jones (Logos), there would appear to be an unbridgeable chasm.  

A final word on KMD’s position — a position I regard as entirely reasonable, because scientifically defensible. He believes that there are many meaningful commonalities between Europeans [“Whites”] at the genetic level. This is because they have similar genetic interests and a natural, instinctive solidarity in spite of their religious differences. That is to say, a European atheist and a European Christian have more in common ultimately than a European Christian and an African Christian. It follows from this that a marriage between a European atheist and a European Christian, which helps to produce children of pure European stock, is to be preferred to a marriage between a European Christian and an African Christian — a marriage that could only result in miscegenated children or “half breeds” — children who would not only be genetically removed from their parents but totally alien to their grandparents. 

In an ideal world, Mr Shamir, all such children would turn out to resemble Dumas père or Pushkin. Proud to be what they are and uniquely valuable in God’s variegated world. In the real world, however, they face many serious problems. If they were happy with their pigmentation, why the incessant and growing demand for skin-whiteners? Even in India there is color prejudice. Indeed, it is India that produces the best skin-whiteners and exports them all over the world. That tells you something.   

There is also the delicate question of IQ. If the IQs of Whites and Blacks were equal, and if this could be adequately proved, there would be no problem. But if Whites are much smarter than Blacks, as is often alleged, then intermarriage can only result in a general diminution of IQ. When diversity entails a general deterioration of intelligence and culture, this surely has to be deplored. This “diversity” is celebrated in America by the Jew-controlled media but, curiously enough, is abominated in Israel. Losing one’s racial identity is apparently good for Whites but bad for Jews. I have to say it: these double standards suck.   

To give KMD his credit, he honestly believes that if we identify on the basis of religion that does not take account of ethnicity at least implicitly, as E. Michael Jones does vis-à-vis his Catholicism, the White race will eventually be destroyed. I think KMD is right to be concerned that the race that gave us Dante and Shakespeare, Leonardo and Botticelli, Mozart and Beethoven, may soon become extinct as a result of malevolent immigration policies designed to serve the interests of one group and one group only: organized Jewry — the group you yourself castigate and criticize in veiled terms as “predators” and “the Masters of Discourse.” 

I’ll conclude this critique by saying that this is an infinitely complex subject. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I  see through a glass darkly, only too conscious of my intellectual limitations. You will therefore pardon me, I hope, if I’ve said anything foolish or inappropriate. I have no wish to offend anyone. 

Kind regards and blessings, 

Lasha Darkmoon.

Bookmark and Share

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 31, with higher degrees in classics.  A published poet and translator, she is also a political  activist with a special interest in Middle Eastern affairs. ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ is a pen name

Merlin Miller: Review of "Edge of Darkness"

/22 Comments/in /by

Merlin Miller: Edge of Darkness is an important and timely political thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat.  Originally produced as a British mini-series, this story has been modernized and set in Boston.  Director Martin Campbell, who helmed the original, as well as several recent hit films, including, Casino Royale, brilliantly executes with a cast and crew tailor made for their roles.   

Mel Gibson Stars in Edge of Darkness

Mel Gibson Stars in "Edge of Darkness"

The story is about a veteran homicide detective, Thomas Craven, who must solve the murder of his own daughter, Emma (who dies in his arms), and the conspiracy that led to it.  As Craven, Mel Gibson is back with a performance that reminds us why he is one of the all time greats. He hasn’t been in front of the camera since 2002’s Signs, but what a return this is!  His powerful performance grabs and doesn’t let go.  Even though his intense blue eyes have been intentionally muted with wardrobe and lighting to create a disheveled and distraught character appearance, he still captivates.  As a widower, who has now lost his only child, Craven has but one goal left and that is to find and exact vengeance on her killers.  

Initially believed to be the target himself, things don’t stack up for Craven and he discovers that his daughter led a life that he knew nothing about.  Throughout the film, use of memory flashbacks of Emma as a little girl, and apparitions of her lost spirit, provide love connections, which are beautifully and hauntingly effective.  The chemistry, between father and daughter, is wonderfully developed by Gibson and Serbian-Australian actress, Bojana Novakovic.  As a nuclear physicist intern, Emma worked for an energy and research firm that held government contracts.  She became aware of sinister efforts by her corporate employer (played with arrogant perversity by Danny Huston) to produce nuclear weapons that could be used and then blamed on Jihadists.  This future “false flag” operation had the secret support of elements of our own government.  Emma’s efforts to “do right” and protect our true national interests were betrayed by those she thought she could trust, including a US Senator. 

As Craven investigates with increasing despair, he uncovers key parts of the conspiracy with the enigmatic assistance of a government clean-up agent (and assassin), Darius Jedburgh, wonderfully played by Ray Winston.  Although his delivery was difficult to understand at times, Winston’s understated performance is central to the story and his scenes with Gibson are riveting.  At one point, Jedburgh philosophically states to an inquiring Craven, “…you just never can connect A to B.”  Craven responds “How do you know?” to which Jedburgh replies “Because I’m usually the guy that stops you from connecting A to B.”  But Jedburgh is “terminal” (as he says “we all are”), and this takes him through a soul searching process, where he will ultimately be tested to either do his assigned job or do the right thing.  This is a decision many of our government servants may be asking themselves today.  

The themes of honoring family (Jedburgh regrets never having had one and Craven has devastatingly lost his) and protecting our freedoms are tightly woven into this story’s tapestry.  A memorable and repeated line, “Everything’s illegal in Massachusetts”, speaks tellingly to current and historic patriots.  And Craven’s threat to the Senator, “You had better decide whether you’re hangin’ on the Cross, or bangin’ in the nails,” speaks to our unfortunate loss of faith and increasing corruption. 

One aspect of the film that may undercut its effectiveness was a dependency on the ultimate honor and integrity of the media. In sympathy for a female reporter, who showed respect and was less predatory than others, Craven sent her Emma’s secret discs, which revealed the conspiracy.  If we still trust in the mainstream media, then it could be a satisfying ending.  Unfortunately, trust in media today is justifiably even lower than trust in our politicians.  But this reporter was local and working for a less controlled media, so perhaps truth can prevail.  This truth dependency is somewhat reminiscent of “Three Days of the Condor” in which the Robert Redford character’s survival rests in the possible publication of his story in the New York Times.  If we had our doubts then, what are we to think now? 

The production credits for this revenge thriller are first rate, and give the film a realistic and gritty “film noir” quality.  The camera flows smoothly, with visual intensity, and the editing and scoring keep us on an emotional roller coaster.  With such a compelling script and top-notch performances, this film has broad commercial appeal, but also works on other important levels.  With its truth-seeking attitude and yearning for traditional values, Edge of Darkness, is an uncertain journey through evil and darkness.  And like Craven, Emma, and Jedburgh, we are left wondering if we, as a people and nation, can rediscover what is important and return to a world of light. 

Merlin Miller (email him)  is a motion picture producer/director and founder of Americana Pictures.  A graduate of West Point and USC film school, he is building a quality alternative to Hollywood. His article, “Americana Pictures: Restoring the Dream” appeared in TOO in April, 2009.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Michael Colhaze on Art

/15 Comments/in /by

Kevin MacDonald: I want to welcome new writer Michael Colhaze to TOO. His current article — written with elegance and passion — is a worthy successor to Lasha Darkmoon’s earlier TOO articles on the pathologies of the art world. Colhaze points out that becoming a famous artist is like winning a lottery where only psychopaths need bother to enter:

Among thousands of candidates, both academics or naturals, all waiting eagerly for a hint from the established Modern art Mafia, now and then one is chosen. Since he is, just like his many contenders, about as gifted as a bedbug, nobody with a sane mind would assume that considerations of artistic merit ever played a part. What counts is a rigorous talent for self-representation, unfettered by the smallest grain of aesthetics or ethics, an inborn and unlimited vulgarity, and the stated objective to be the most ruthless Judas Iscariot to the Fine Arts that ever set foot on our sacred earth.

This lottery of the psychopaths has special import for Colhaze because his son is entering into the field of art. It must be especially difficult for a parent to deal with the prospects of a son entering a field where artistic talent is not rewarded and where success is determined by a whimsical elite whose only prerequisite is psychopathy among the lucky few whom they promote.

Similar thoughts, with slight variations (e.g., a son who wants to become a professor in the humanities or social sciences where cultural Marxism is de rigueur), must be on the minds of many parents who realize that the prospects of their children are severely compromised in a culture gone mad.

Bookmark and Share

Legalized Pornography and Demographic Genocide

/89 Comments/in /by

Reginald Thompson:

“A primary cause of low fertility in the Greco-Roman world was a male culture that held marriage in low esteem.” -Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity

A problem with legalized pornography is that if you allow pornography to become too widely consumed, its degraded vision of women will eat away at the capacity of men to fall in love with members of the opposite sex.   This reduced capacity for romantic love will make the men of a society less interested in the joys and challenges of stable pair bond based reproduction. Pornography encourages recreational sex rather than marriage and  children.

Also, pornography will discourage men from participating in stable pair bonds by tricking their Limbic Systems into thinking they’re getting so much sex that there’s no need to settle down.

Given that stable pair bond based sex is by far the most valuable from the standpoint of increasing the birth rate, I decided to do some research on whether legalized pornography correlates with a country having reduced fertility.

From Wikipedia I found a list of 45 Countries where it was possible to assign their pornography laws to one of three categories: Pornography Banned, Semi-Legalized Pornography, or fully Legalized Pornography.

Then I looked at the 2000 TFR Rates for these countries as provided by the CIA World Factbook:

N    Total Fertility Rate

Pornography Banned         19            2.73

Pornography Semi-Legal     5            1.69

Pornography Fully Legal   21            1.67

As can be seen, there’s a stunningly large gap in fertility between countries where pornography is banned and countries where it is wholly or partially legal.  In fact, the gap is great enough that even with a sample size of only 45 countries, the Mann-Whitney test of the difference between two means gives a P Value of only .000005.

Could this discrepancy be driven by White countries almost all having legal pornography while having low Fertility for other reasons?

No it couldn’t, as the discrepancy is almost exactly the same even after we throw the White countries out of the equation!

N    Total Fertility Rate

Pornogrpahy Banned        17             2.85

Pornography Semi-Legal   1              3.11

Pornography Legal              6              1.79

But what about the possibility that Muslims countries almost all have illegal pornography while at the same time having higher Birth Rates for other reasons?

That can’t be what’s driving the result either, as the correlation remains nearly as strong even after throwing out all the Muslim countries:

N    Total Fertility Rate

Pornography Banned        19            2.35

Pornography Semi-Legal    5            1.69

Pornography Legal             10            1.63

At the same time there might be more subtle differences between countries where pornography is banned and countries where it is not that could be partially driving this result.

The real question from a practical standpoint is whether legalizing pornography in a country will drive down fertility. If that is the case, we can rightfully conclude that reversing the legalization of pornography in a country would be of great benefit to its Birth Rate.

From the CDC I found tables showing the Total Fertility Rate for America in the years 1940 to 2000.

Then I decided to look up the Total Fertility Rate for the 5 years before and 5 years after two key Supreme Court rulings that made it essentially impossible to arrest an American for distributing or possessing obscene materials, and which opened never before seen floodgates of pornography.

Jacobellis v. Ohio    Stanley v. Georgia

TFR For 5 Years Before          3.53                           2.62

TFR For 5 Years After              2.77                           2.04

As can be seen, America’s Total Fertility Rate suffered a profound decline in response to the Supreme Court’s two most important rulings in favor of the pornography industry.

Also, when I put whether a year came before or after Jacobellis v. Ohio and Stanley v. Georgia as Dummy Variables in a Multiple Regression, together they explained a staggering 77% of the variation in American fertility from 1940 to 2000!

I think the implications of these findings to White Advocates should be loud and clear: The use of pornography by Whites should be fought tooth and nail, and the banning of pornography in White majority countries and states should be set as a central long-term goal.

Notes: Jacobellis v. Ohio was a 1964 ruling by the Supreme Court that the exhibitor of a film judged obscene by the state of Ohio could not be prosecuted. This had the effect of making it nearly impossible for States to punish people for disseminating pornography.

Stanley v. Georgia was a 1969 ruling by the Supreme Court that invalidated all state laws forbidding the private possession of materials judged obscene. This effectively gave everyone in the country the legal right to buy and hold as much pornography as they could their hands on, thus creating a state of affairs never before seen in American history.

Reginald Thompson is the Pen Name of an Advisor to an International Software Company. He lives on the American East Coast and is proprietor/manager of a recently created Blog called Statsaholic.

Bookmark and Share