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

/3 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clown-Kings Import Cousin-Copulators

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix: Music for Moobs on the Move

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

“The Transgender Song”

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

If a person has a penis, he’s a man!

If a person has a penis, he’s a man!

If he doesn’t want to lose it,

Even though he doesn’t use it,

If a person has a penis, he’s a man!

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

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

He can tuck it to conceal it,

Let it dangle and reveal it,

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

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

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

If the chromosome’s a “Y,”

HE WILL ALWAYS BE A GUY…

If he isn’t born a woman, he’s a man!

James Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution”

/12 Comments/in /by

We are aware that we live in a technocracy, but we don’t necessarily understand what that means. What is a technocrat, and how does he or, increasingly, she function? A key text to understanding this relatively new style of governance is James Burnham’s 1941 book, The Managerial Revolution. Writing during World War 2, Burnham finds a societal shift analogous to this new kind of warfare, as the West moved “from one type of structure of society to another type”.

The outgoing form of society is that dominated by capitalism, the development of which Burnham dates from the end of the Middle Ages to 1914, and “our purpose is to analyze not capitalism but the type of society which is succeeding it”. Three possibilities are offered up: that capitalism will continue to dominate society, that it will be succeeded by a “socialist revolution”, or that both capitalism and socialism will be replaced by the “managerial revolution” of the book’s title.

The failure of the first great experiment in socialism in Russia after the 1917 revolution, and that nation’s steadfast refusal to accept capitalist practice, along with the rise of historiography, mean that “The Marxian philosophy of dialectical materialism takes its place with the other outmoded speculative metaphysics of the nineteenth century.” This seems to imply, in Burnham’s triumvirate of alternatives, that Russia could only tend towards managerialism. Moving on to consider the struggle for power in a general sense, Burnham states that “To an ever-increasing extent in post-medieval society, the decisive sectors of economy are not agricultural but mercantile, industrial, and financial.” It is already clear that this shift from the old, extractive or “primary” industries to another level of organization lends itself to a new and necessary level of control. And, as feudal society gave way to – or was effectively defeated by – capitalism (partly due to collusion and the fact that the new class of capitalists were largely drawn from the feudal tradition), so too the control of production was accorded to the ever-strengthening bourgeoisie. The proletariat, although championed by the revolutionary socialists in Russia, “did not have the social equipment for the fight”. The stage is set for the managerial revolution.

The coming of this revolution is aided and abetted by accelerated culture, itself an analogue to increasing mechanization. “An unusually rapid rate of change of the most important economic, social, political, and cultural institutions of society”, seems to favor the coming of the managerial class. Wyndham Lewis described World War 1 as “the first mechanized war”, and when Burnham dates the rise of managerialism from what was, until World War 2, known as “the Great War”, the parallels with the acceleration of machine-based technology seem clear. The new class does not exercise its power through property rights, but rather via control of those rights, which is at the heart of managerialism. The managers will control not the means of production and their necessary link to property rights, but rather by controlling those who do. The ideology funding this Burnham calls “technocracy”. Burnham sums up the framework of transition:

In simplest terms, the theory of the managerial revolution asserts merely the following: Modern society has been organized through a certain set of major economic, social, and political institutions which we call capitalist, and has exhibited certain major social beliefs or ideologies. Within this social structure we find that a particular group or class of persons—the capitalists or bourgeoisie—is the dominant or ruling class in the sense which has been defined. At the present time, these institutions and beliefs are undergoing a process of rapid transformation. The conclusion of this period of transformation, to be expected in the comparatively near future, will find society organized through a quite different set of major economic, social, and political institutions and exhibiting quite different major social beliefs or ideologies. Within the new social structure, a different social group or class — the managers — will be the dominant or ruling class.

Burnham turns his attention to the question that bridges his era and our own. Who are the managers? As increasing technological specialization leads to less training time, for example, for engineers, mechanics, and various other secondary industry operatives, so too a new class of coordinators must of necessity arise:

“We may often recognize them as ‘production managers,’ operating executives, superintendents, administrative engineers, supervisory technicians; or, in government (for they are to be found in governmental enterprise just as in private enterprise) as administrators, commissioners, bureau heads, and so on.”

The feudal system required no management in the modern sense, and the early capitalist was his own manager. Burnham uses a fictional car company example to show that, although there are different positions which control the company – executives, stockholders, finance capitalists – the management class splits off from these dominant functionaries and becomes its own separate order. This shows us, writes Burnham, “the mechanism of the managerial revolution”.

As capitalists withdraw further and further away from the means of production, so a vacuum appears for the managerial class to fill:

Throughout industry, de facto control by the managers over the actual processes of production is rapidly growing in terms both of the aspects of production to which it extends and the times in which it is exercised. In some sections of the economy, the managerial control is already fairly thorough, even though always limited indirectly by big capitalist control of the banks and finance.

The new class of managers will not themselves replace the capitalists as the controllers of the means of production, but the management class as a whole will. And this class goes through the next stage of evolution as the government begins to expand into the economy as a whole:

“The actual, day-by-day direction of the processes owned and operated by the government or controlled, without full ownership, by the government is in the hands of individuals strictly comparable to those whom we have called ‘managers’ in the case of private industry.”

And so, as capitalism recedes, the new managerial class fortifies itself not simply with regards to the actual means of production, but to the economy itself.

It is clear that, while socialists favor governmental incursion into the wider economy, capitalists are against it. Today, for us, things are more complex, and a deal seems to have been struck between government and Burnham’s outgoing class. We have all heard of “crony capitalism”. There is, however, a historical determinism at play:

The ‘limited state’ of capitalism is replaced by the ‘unlimited’ managerial state. Capitalist society exists no longer or lingers only as a temporary remnant. Managerial society has taken its place.

And this managerial society, this new ruling class, will be exploitative. Also, it will gain a position from which it can “achieve a certain continuity from generation to generation”.

As Burnham looks to the future, he sees any problems for the new managerial class as being distinct from those that befell the old capitalist class:

“Managerial crises will, it would seem, be technical and political in character”.

The managerial class will, however, be better able to turn new technology to its advantage, as it will not be actuated by profit-and-loss motives. Burnham now moves to the “shift in the locus of sovereignty”.

That capitalist society develops in tandem with the institution of parliament cannot be plotted with accuracy, writes Burnham. It is not “as tidy as a geometrical theorem”. It is a point he makes often, and an important one. It is always a category mistake to expect social or historical theorizing to have the surety of the mathematical, but it is a category mistake still made today. However, with a change in the ruling class must come a change in its executive institutions, and Burnham conjectures what will accompany the rise of the managerial class in terms of its symbolic locus of power.

While the new managerial class can function in a state which is not totalitarian, totalitarianism cannot exist without the managers:

Those nations — Russia, Germany, and Italy — which have advanced furthest toward the managerial social structure are all of them, at present, totalitarian dictatorships.

Totalitarianism is enabled by technological advance, and technological advance is the sine qua non of managerialism.

Burnham considers the apparent conflation of managerialism with bureaucratism, and asks which of this set of functionaries is ultimately to be in charge. It makes little difference, he writes, and is simply a question of nomenclature as, “In either case, the general structural and institutional organization will be the same.” The result is also the same. Technology has enabled management not only to rise within the state system, but also to dictate and regulate that system as though it were itself a technologically enhanced means of production:

“Stalin or Hitler prepares for a new political turn more or less as a production manager prepares for getting out a new model on his assembly line.”

Welcome to the machine.

But the mask of democracy must still be worn, and the masses must continue to be duped by the ring of its name. We see this on a daily basis, as everyone from Donald Trump to Nigel Farage is branded by the new political managers as “a threat to democracy”. Democracy works best the smaller the core of the state which actually casts executive votes, as in Athens, and the new brand which is emerging in parallel with the new managerial class will be somewhat different, another aspect of the malevolent new state we see across the West today:

The democracy of capitalist society is on the way out, is, in fact, just about gone, and will not come back. The democracy of managerial society will be some while being born; and its birth pangs will include drastic convulsions.

Perhaps Burnham’s prediction explains the convulsions felt across the West today. It is not his only foresight which today sounds familiar, as he turns his attention to the “world policy” of the managers, and we detect the grand entrance of globalism, a term flung around today but whose definition is not wholly clear. The existence of many nations, Burnham writes, is simply not compatible with the technologically enhanced new world order. Managers would rather manage one large department than lots of little bureaucratic fiefdoms:

The complex division of labor, the flow of trade and raw materials made possible and demanded by modern technology, were strangled in the network of diverse tariffs, laws, currencies, passports, boundary restrictions, bureaucracies, and independent armies. It has been clear for some while that these were going to be smashed.

This is consistent with the borderless aims of today’s globalists. Any machine will function more efficiently if it is one large structure subject to repair and improvement as a whole, rather than having to modify mechanical sub-catalogues, and Burnham is prescient considering our current predicament:

If political problems were settled by scientific reasoning, we should, most probably, expect that the political system of managerial society would take the form of a single world-state.

However this is achieved, Burnham continues, war will be the catalyst, and he describes the war in which he is writing as the first great war of the managerial age, just as World War 1 was the last of the capitalist era.

What of the managerial ideology? Burnham reprises his distinction between types of truth, and the difference between truth functions is insufficiently attended in our time. Science is fact-based, ideology is not. The classical distinction between ratio and emotio becomes a distinctive feature of ideology compared with more rigorous science:

The primary function of ideologies – whether moral or religious or metaphysical or social  is to express human interests, needs, desires, hopes, fears, not to cover the facts.” While scientific disputes can be settled by recourse to experiment and empirical verification or refutation, ideological differences have no such veridical reserve. It is simply a question of power, of Nietzschean kinetics. Burnham is alive to the pragmatics of the conflict between a dying capitalism and the new breed of manager, and also to the notion of adaptation over innovation:

That an ideology should be a managerial ideology, it is not necessary that managers should be its inventors or the first to adopt it. Capitalists did not invent capitalist ideologies; and intellectuals were elaborating them when the ambition of nearly every capitalist was still to be a feudal lord. It is the social effects that count.

Managerialism also unites two infamous ideologies, both ruinous, which are routinely separated today. This is a Venn-type overlap which takes us, once again, back to the model of the production-line:

Fascist and communist ideologies denounce in the same words the ‘chaos’ and ‘anarchy’ of capitalism. They conceive of the organization of the state of the future, their state, exactly along the lines on which a manager, an engineer, organizes a factory.

Considerations of managerial influence in Russia and Germany show that both were vulnerable to the new ideology, and thus were forced to accommodate it:

“What is really involved is a very important consequence of the pattern of the Russian way to managerial society, which we are here studying. This pattern, we saw, calls for first reducing the capitalists to impotence and then curbing the masses. The masses are of course used in accomplishing the first step; and ‘workers’ control’ is a major maneuver in breaking the power of the capitalists. But workers’ control is not only intolerable for the capitalist state: it is, if long continued and established, intolerable for any state and any class rule in society.”

The Russian Revolution, writes Burnham, was not a socialist revolution but a managerial one.

As for Germany, Burnham completes his equivalence in the context of managerialism:

“We find in Germany to an ever-increasing degree those structural changes which we have discovered to be characteristic of the shift from capitalism to managerial society. In the economic sphere, there is a steady reduction, in all senses, of the area of private enterprise, and a correlative increase of state intervention.”

Germany may be at an earlier stage than Russia, but Burnham still sees a larval managerial state.

As for US, although Burnham did not find it to be a managed concern yet, it was well on the way to becoming one:

In the United States, very conspicuously, the great private capitalists have been withdrawing from direct contact with production, traveling from direct supervision of the instruments of production to finance to occasional directors’ meetings to almost complete economic retirement. By this course, they give up, more and more, the de facto control of the instruments of production, upon which social rule in the end rests. Correlatively, more and more of the control over production, both within the arena of private enterprise and in the state, goes into the hands of the managers.

Anyone who has ever worked within a modern management structure, with its line-managers, reports, assessments, duplication, triplication, time-wasting training and ridiculous co-axial, private language, will hear the echoes of Burnham’s book, essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand the modern world and its management, or mis-management:

But no one who comes into contact with managers will fail to have noticed a very considerable assurance in their whole bearing. They know they are indispensable in modern society. Whether or not they have thought it out, they grasp the fact that they have nothing to fear from the immense social changes speeding forward over the whole world. When they begin to think, they get ready to welcome those changes, and often to help them along.

It was Sir Geoffrey Howe, Margaret Thatcher’s aide de camp and Chancellor of the Exchequer, who coined the phrase “managing decline”, and that seems more appropriate now than ever. You would be surprised what can’t be managed.

When Uncle Tom Crosses Uncle Shmuel

/8 Comments/in , , /by

In America’s NGO space, some topics are so taboo that even renowned public intellectuals aren’t safe when they dare criticize sacred cows such as the state of Israel.

Just ask Black economist Glenn Loury.

A former Reagan-era conservative, Loury has held a distinguished career in the field of economics. After earning his doctorate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Loury began as an assistant professor at Northwestern, then joined the University of Michigan, becoming a full professor in 1980. In 1982, at age 33, he became Harvard’s first Black tenured economics professor.

Loury would later join Brown University in 2005, where he held the title of Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Brown University. Additionally, he is a Professor of International and Public Affairs at the same institution. In late 2020, Loury joined the Manhattan Institute as a senior fellow and got the conservative think tank to sponsor his podcast “The Glenn Show” for a few years.

Everything was going well for the economist until he crossed into politically dangerous terrain. During his May 9, 2025 interview with Tucker Carlson, Loury revealed that he was fired by the Manhattan Institute for criticizing Israel.

In 2024, Loury started to criticize Israel for the way it conducted its military campaign in Gaza. According to Loury, the Manhattan Institute first expressed concerns about his stance on Gaza after he published his interview with Israeli historian Omer Bartov, who has been critical of the Israeli hard right and the Netanyahu coalition government’s actions in Gaza.

Loury endorsed historian Omer Bartov’s analysis, which aligned with international human rights organizations’ warnings that Israel’s conduct might constitute a genocide. Further, Loury openly condemned Israel’s actions in the summer of 2024 in a post titled “I Was Fired by the Manhattan Institute. Here’s Why.”

Loury conceded that Hamas’ attack on Israel was indefensible but stressed that Jewish state’s response was disproportionate. He wrote:

…killing thousands of noncombatants, subjecting hundreds of thousands to injury and starvation, and destroying the homes of millions is too high a cost to pay for the goal of “eliminating” or “eradicating” Hamas, especially since it is not clear whether and how that goal is to be accomplished. It seems likely that the scope of the death and destruction in Gaza will inspire more people in Gaza, the West Bank, and abroad to take up arms against Israel than would have been the case had the response been less catastrophic.

Interestingly, Lowry praised Ta-Nehisi Coates’ 2024 book The Message for its coverage of the plight of Palestinians living in the West Bank settlements, saying “there’s much to admire in it.”

It was his appearance on Carlson’s show where he finally broke the silence about his departure from the conservative think tank. In the show, Loury discussed the chilling effect that such actions have on open debate. The former Manhattan Institute fellow could no longer tolerate self-censoring and holding his opinions back on Gaza. Carlson summed up the incident: “For decades, conservative think tanks celebrated and supported black economist Glenn Loury. Then he expressed an unauthorized opinion on the Middle East and they dropped him in a second.”

Glenn Loury [00:00:00] And I said, what has been proceeding there in Gaza as a collective punishment that I don’t think is justified. And I got notified the next day the Manhattan Institute was discontinuing its relationship with me as a senior fellow.

Tucker [00:00:13] If you’d said that about the United States, would you have gotten the same reaction?

Glenn Loury [00:00:17] Ah, good ques-

Tucker [00:00:18] Do you think you’ve been bamboozled?

Glenn Loury [00:00:20] Are we really going to go to war with Iran and turn the world economy upside down? Is it really Jim Crow 2.0 if they want to ask for a driver’s license before you cast the ballot in Georgia?

In a follow-up post on Substack, Loury noted that the Manhattan Institute “disapproved of my opposition to the Gaza War, my criticisms of Israel’s prosecution of that war, and my praise of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s meditations on the West Bank settlements. “

Loury’s call for proportionality and Palestinian rights violated an unspoken rule in U.S. politics: unconditional support for Israel supersedes intellectual independence, even for Black thinkers, who are largely privileged by the United States’ anti-White system.

Being the token Black in Conservatism Inc. could not even shield Loury from professional harm at the hands of Manhattan Institute—an organization bankrolled by billionaire Jews such as Paul Singer and John Paulson.

Other Blacks have shared a similar fate as Loury when they dared touch the Hebraic third rail in the post-October 7 world. Progressive Black commentator Briahna Joy Gray learned firsthand about the risks of criticizing Israel’s industrialized child ritual murder project in Gaza.

In September 2022, Gray joined The Hill’s popular web program “Rising” as a co-host. The show was noted for its bipartisan format and focus on breaking political news and analysis. However, her tenure on “Rising” was brief.  On June 4, 2024, Yarden Gonen, the sister of Israeli hostage Romi Gonen, appeared on “Rising.” As a strong advocate of Palestine, Gray was skeptical of the narrative being put forward by Gonen and other defenders of the Jewish state. The interview was suffuse with tension.

At the end of their conversation, Gonen said she hoped that Gray would “believe” Israeli women. Gray rolled her eyes, interrupted Gonen, and ended the segment. This moment sparked backlash, with many perceiving Gray’s reaction as dismissive toward the families of Israeli hostages. Shortly thereafter, Gray was unceremoniously fired from “Rising.”

Addressing her termination, Gray stated: “The Hill has a clear pattern of suppressing speech — particularly when it’s critical of the state of Israel. This is why they fired @kthalps, & it was only a matter of time before they fired me.”

As I’ve written before, the once stout Jewish-Black alliance appears to be fraying. Jews’ historically reliable golems in the Black community are beginning to venture outside of the Zionist plantation, thereby compelling the Jewish community to find new proxy forces to carry out their bidding and even throw Whites a bone.

Blacks are getting a hard lesson that their political relevance is predicated on Jewish funding and organization. Once that funding and support dries up, they become just another non-White minority group fighting for political attention in the Empire of Mongrelia.

When one strips everything away, the real sovereign in American politics is not in Congress, but in a synagogue near you.

Lost Sheep American Christian Nationalism as a Problem in Geopolitical Theology

/2 Comments/in , /by

From: brittanica.com

My latest book was written from an Anglo-Identitarian perspective.  I try to demonstrate that a pan-British race patriotism can be rekindled by a reformed, neo-Angelcynn (Old English for “kin of the Angles”) church.  Such a reformation would provide a desperately needed theopolitical alternative to the hegemonic, universalist model of creedal Christianity. Nowadays, as we have just seen, even American Christian nationalism routinely invokes the deracinated, disembodied Lordship of global Jesus as its heavenly warrant.

Lost Sheep: American Christian Nationalism as a Problem in Geopolitical Theology[1]

Introduction

Christian nationalism has become a hot, and divisive, topic among evangelical Protestants in the USA.  Problems arise for American Christian nationalists and their enemies alike, because the movement subordinates all “nations” (typically defined in civic, as opposed to racial or ethnic, terms) to a divinely ordained mission to procure for themselves both earthly and heavenly goods “in Christ.”  “National” identity is, therefore, not a good in and of itself, grounded in blood and belonging.  Only through the grace bestowed upon it by God, as revealed in Scripture, can a nation be perfected.

The manifest destiny of all nations, in other words, will be realized in history as they embrace the universal truths of the Christian religion.   This doctrine was invoked recently in an article which appeared on two Christian websites, Iron Ink  and Tribal Theocrat.   The immediate point of the piece was to defend the “dissident Christian right” against the charge that Christian nationalism is little more than a “woke right” heresy. The case for the defence, as set out by the pseudonymous author (“jetbrane” or “Enos Powell,” take your pick), rests upon a description of the ontology, epistemology, anthropology, teleology, and axiology of the “dissident Christian right.”  This brief but wide-ranging survey leads the author (whose real name is Bret McAtee, pastor of a small church in Michigan) to the conclusion that every facet of the Christian nationalist “worldview,” is set in radical and permanent opposition to the “hard woke worldview.” The latter position, McAtee declares, “is always about the glory of man as determined by some Christless God hating elite.”

In sharp contrast, for Pastor McAtee, it is axiomatic that the Weltanschauung of the dissident Christian right “advocates the Crown Rights of the Rightful Rule” of the Lord Jesus Christ “over every area of life.”  He contends that the accusation that Christian nationalism is just another manifestation of the woke right fails “because the dissident right’s worldview includes an extra-mundane personal and authoritative God who “created all things in six days and all are very good.”  According to the pastor, the dissident Christian right necessarily bows “to God’s determination of reality.”  Its “ultimate value … is the glory of God and His Christ.”  Biblical Christianity, the pastor assures us, is anchored providentially in a universal “history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth” in fulfillment of God’s plan “to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.”

Attending a Christian Nationalist Conference

Now, whatever one makes of McAtee’s defence of the dissident Christian right, there is no denying that he reflects the dominant mindset among Anglo-American Christian nationalists.  I came face-to-face with that reality when I decided to attend the recent Right Response Ministries conference in Texas (devoted to “Defeating Trash World”).  I felt as if I had entered a theological bubble, hermetically sealed within the historical creeds and a biblical hermeneutic impervious to scholarly criticism.

In fact, in the months leading up to the conference, I found it impossible to receive permission (or even acknowledgement of my request) from Joel Webbon—the pastor organizing the event—to set up a table displaying my new book. I even had Amazon.com send him a copy of the book, entitled Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism. Admittedly, such a title suggests strong dissent from the outworn axioms of creedal Christianity.   I had hoped, however, that a display table would spark some interest and provide an opportunity to defend the book in conversation with speakers and attendees at the conference.  When I finally arrived at the conference with a box of books (obtained at half price from Arktos), I asked the pastor’s administrative assistant, if I might be able to set up a small table to display them. After an hour or so, not having received a response, I asked her again whether permission might be forthcoming. She told me flatly that it would not be possible since that facility was available only for conference sponsors. This explanation later seemed a bit misleading since I noticed that at least two tables already laden with books and related material were occupied by podcasters who were unlikely to be “conference sponsors.”

Samizdat Stall. Right Response conference

Making the best of it, I decided to use the ticket my wife had purchased for the conference (which due to health concerns she didn’t use) to claim a chair for my own use as a sort of surreptitious Samizdat Stall to display my own books.  Serendipitously, one person who did notice the stall, with copies of my Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus book in plain view thereupon, was Pastor Joel’s wife.  As we were talking, she pointed to my book, remarking that her husband had received a copy of it at his church a few weeks earlier.  Shortly afterwards, the Pastor himself happened by (rather conspicuously ignoring my samizdat book display) and asked my name. I introduced myself before (much to my satisfaction) his wife drew her husband’s attention to the book, reminding him that he had already received a copy of his own.  Pastor Webbon, however, made no use of the opportunity to acknowledge receipt of said book, much less discuss it, and hastily made his departure.

This rather abrupt brush-off came as no real surprise to me since (even during the period not so long ago when I was studying for a degree in theology) I have always found that orthodox Christian believers seem remarkably reluctant to engage in a dialogue with anyone they perceive as an unbeliever or heretic.  Such intellectual insularity is doubly unfortunate among self-declared “Christian nationalists” who aim to gain political power to re-establish Christianity in the public square.  Not a great strategy, in other words, for a movement that will need to make friends and influence people to achieve its political objectives.

In my own case, as I tried to make clear in my book, I look upon the position taken by Christian nationalists in the culture wars with a great deal of sympathy. Indeed, as a cultural Christian, I want to see all Anglo-Protestants throughout the length and breadth of the Anglosphere unite in a broad church to wage that struggle.  I strongly suspect that Pastor Webbon may have glanced through his copy of my book, only to dismiss it summarily as damnable heresy.  Judging by another Iron Ink article, Pastor McAtee, too, doubts that I am “a Christian in any traditional, orthodox, or historical sense.”  Pointedly, he adds that it “stands to reason” that Pastor Webbon “wouldn’t give him a book table to hawk his books. I wouldn’t either. Christians don’t promote non-Christianity at their conferences.”[2]

Christian Identities

Perhaps, if Christian identity turns solely upon fidelity to the creeds, I should be denied entry into the fold.  On the other hand, as the author of a book entitled Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to Christian Theology, am I not entitled to a presumptive claim to be a member of the dissident Christian right?  In any case, Ehud Would, of Faith & Heritage fame, appears to have recognized me as such in his thoughtful and generally favourable review of Dissident Dispatches back in 2017.  Surely, doctrinally rigid, creedal Christians are no more authentically Christian than cultural Christians who dissent from received orthodoxy.

Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there has always been more than one way to conceive and constitute a Christian nation.  The nation that was created by the Loyalists who fled to Canada was no less “Christian” than the revolutionary republic created by the American rebels who forcibly drove those loyal to the British Crown from their own homes and native land.

I was born a British subject before the creation of Australian or Canadian citizenship, at a time when Anglo-Saxons still counted as one of Canada’s two “founding races.”  As a consequence, my intellectual development has been greatly influenced by the strange demise of both British Canada and British Australia.

Accordingly, my latest book was written from an Anglo-Identitarian perspective.  I try to demonstrate that a pan-British race patriotism can be rekindled by a reformed, neo-Angelcynn (Old English for “kin of the Angles”) church.  Such a reformation would provide a desperately needed theopolitical alternative to the hegemonic, universalist model of creedal Christianity. Nowadays, as we have just seen, even American Christian nationalism routinely invokes the deracinated, disembodied Lordship of global Jesus as its heavenly warrant.

Following the crushing defeat of German ethnonationalism in 1945, the global Jesus of contemporary Anglo-Protestant theology achieved virtually uncontested hegemony.  Today, almost all mainstream Anglo-Protestants reject even the mildest manifestations of ethnic particularism as tantamount to racism.  Indeed, the advocacy of “Christian nationalism” is denounced regularly from the pulpits of mainline Anglo-Protestant churches in the United States.

Clearly, avowed Christian nationalists in the USA are now held hostage by global Jesus.  Christian nationalism piously declares itself bound to affirm that the telos of human history will be realized only when the primary allegiance of all nations is to King Jesus.  It remains to be seen, however, whether a distinctively white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethnoreligious identity can be squared with the ahistorical, universalist reign of Lord Jesus.  Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity.  He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

Christianity as Ethnoreligion?

By contrast, my thesis is that an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reduces the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).  The rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism requires a solid ethnoreligious foundation, as did the first-century Jesus movement.  The refusal of hidebound American evangelicals to recognize the unique ethnonational identity of the historical Jesus is the outdated legacy of historically Romanised ecclesiastical establishments, Protestant and Catholic alike. My argument, therefore, is that Anglo-Saxon Christianity should be re-Germanized by re-imagining the Angelcynn church of Alfred the Great to fit the needs of our own age.

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus presents persuasive evidence that the Hebrew Bible (most likely created between the fifth and second centuries BC) produced a poignant and powerful national narrative.  Conceived by Judean scribes as a pedagogic tool, that biblical narrative inspired the “project of peoplehood” presupposed by the Jesus movement of the first century AD.

Anglo-Protestants desperately need to recover earlier folkish variants of the Christian tradition.  I suggest that the focus of Anglo-Protestantism needs to be shifted away from its long-standing preoccupation with personal salvation in the world to come.  Anglos need a sense of rootedness in networks of ethnoreligious communities in which shared ancestry matters as much if not more than doctrinal purity.  Ethno-religious ties provide the institutional precondition and moral foundation for socially cohesive communities, be they local (the Amish, for example) or global (such as the Jews).  Anglo-Protestant churches, too, could become the ethnoreligious heart of breakaway parallel societies.  Such communities will be devoted not just to producing healthy, happy, and morally upright families; they will also generate British-descended counter-elites set in opposition to the irresponsible corporate plutocracy now misgoverning the Anglosphere.

It may be that Anglo-Protestants will someday receive as King a Christ of their own.  But, as preterist scholar Don K. Preston often remarks, he is unlikely to return as a 5’5” Jewish man whose name is Jesus.  That fact need not preclude the miraculous appearance of our own Patriot King, were he to become incarnate in Australia and the other British dominions.

Conclusion

In short, there is a pressing need for a sympathetic but penetrating critique of the hitherto unchallenged hegemony of global Jesus within the theopolitical imagination of the emergent Christian nationalist movement.  American Christian nationalism is a predominantly Anglo-Protestant movement. Like the first-century Jesus movement, it can and should embrace, explicitly, its distinctive ethnoreligious character outside and apart from both the state and creedal Christianity.

Neither Jesus nor Paul aimed to create a new religion.  They sought instead to save the “lost sheep of Israel.” Like everyone else in Greco-Roman antiquity, they took it for granted that ethnicity and religion were synonymous categories.  Paul, for example, became the “apostle to the pagans” because he believed that the descendants of the ten lost tribes who had been absorbed into the pagan world could have their “spiritual DNA” as Israelites reactivated “in Christ.”  Contemporary biblical scholarship often describes Jesus and Paul as historical figures working “within Judaism” or “within Israeliteism.” In other words, their efforts to spark “the resurrection of Israel” were part and parcel of the “project of peoplehood” pioneered by the Hebrew Bible.

Today’s Christian nationalists should recognize WASPs throughout the Anglo-Protestant diaspora as an “invisible race” much like the “lost sheep of Israel.”  Anglo-Americans (along with Anglo-Canadians, Anglo-Australians, and Anglo-Kiwis) are, in effect, the “lost sheep of Greater Britain.”  American Christian nationalists should seek salvation, together with their co-ethnics in the former British dominions, in a post-modern “project of peoplehood” seeking to bring the idea of their Patriot King down to earth.

Acting together, faithful Anglo-Protestants could spark the spiritual reformation of the entire Anglosphere. Such a religious movement could provide the solution to an existential problem in geopolitical theology.  Anglo-Protestants everywhere need to understand themselves as a tribal network facing extinction if the corporate state apparatus of the global American empire is left unchecked.  Anglo-American Christian nationalists, especially, should grasp the opportunity to embrace an ancestral British race patriotism, in solidarity with co-ethnics in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand still owing allegiance to the Crown.

A neo-Angelcynn movement grounded in orthopraxis rather than strait-laced orthodoxy will be able to attract nominally secular, cultural Christians alienated from contemporary churches.  While resistant to unconditional belief in the established Christian creeds and confessions, WASPs are typically more likely to be receptive to a “modernized” folk religion in which the church serves, first and foremost, as a teacher of morality.  Deracinated Anglo-Protestants have long been accustomed to treating moral behaviour merely as a stepping stone towards individual salvation.  A folkish practical theology would instead gather WASPs together in moral communities, resurrecting an ancestral project of peoplehood with its shared history and destiny.  In so doing, neo-Angelcynn churches could bring to fruition the objectives of men such as Sir John Robert Seeley who pioneered the Broad-Church movement  in the nineteenth century Church of England.

In our own time, the need for such a movement has never been more urgent. Young Anglo-Protestants, along with their agnostic contemporaries, are having their future stolen from them by a plutocratic corporatist regime destroying every institution that could provide access to stable, prosperous, middle-class family lives of purpose and meaning. In the medium- to long-term, their rising discontent could find a significant institutional outlet in an Anglo-Identitarian Christian movement.  Explicitly Anglo-Protestant churches, schools, colleges, even hospitals, could cultivate the British-descended elites necessary to challenge, not just “Big Eva,” the power centre of American evangelical Protestantism, but also—and more importantly—the unapologetically ethnocentric, “market-dominant minorities” now entrenched within every once-proudly Anglo-Saxon country. The revival of such a Greater British, Broad-Church movement will expose the weaknesses of a parochial, American-style Christian nationalism setting the mythology of global Jesus over loyalty to co-ethnics, both at home and throughout the Anglosphere.

[1] This is a revised and expanded version of an earlier essay which appeared at: https://counter-currents.com/2025/05/the-problem-with-christian-nationalism-american-style/

[2] https://ironink.org/2025/05/the-difference-between-andrew-frasers-ethnoreligious-vision-mcatees-ethno-christian-vision/

Most Irish believe “The Conspiracy” — official report!

/2 Comments/in , /by

The Irish Electoral Commission asked people if they agreed with the statement that a “small secret group” make all major decisions in world politics.

Only 47% disagree.

Scientists are not popular either: Only half disagree that “Groups of scientists manipulate, fabricate or suppress evidence in order to deceive the public.”

In the election we apparently voted 90% + for pro-immigration parties, but this poll shows 73% think “There should be very strict limits on the number of immigrants coming to live in Ireland.”

There is even massive support for the Great Replacement Theory.

“Elected officials want more immigration to bring in obedient voters who will vote for them.” 19% agree, 18% are “not sure”.

“The establishment is replacing white Irish people with non-white immigrants.” 19% agree, 16% are “not sure”.

Why did so many people say they weren’t sure about these hot potato topics? Think about it: There is some good looking, friendly stranger in front of you who assures you that your data will be kept private and he or she is asking your opinion on some very controversial topics. The whole immigration-missing refugee children thing is like a bag of cats. You get called a Nazi, a hater, etc. if you criticise Africans, Muslims or Jews in a rude way. If you criticise them in the politest possible way, they call you a dog-whistler. If you poke your nose into possible connections between Pakistani rape gangs and what happened to the 200 refugee children missing from Irish state care, you might end up burnt to death on a boat on the River Shannon, like brave Garda Deirdre Finn, RIP.

“I’m not sure” probably translates to: “Duh. Obviously, the politicians want to replace us ethnic Irish with the dregs of Africa, Asia and Israel. But you are working for the Electoral Commission. It’s run by a rogue called Art O’Leary. He has boasted of his role in bringing in the homosexual marriage malarkey. The last election was obviously rigged (see previous TOO article). The polling company you work for is called RedC (redcresearch.com), a highly suspicious name, if ever I heard one. If I tell you that I don’t want any more darkies in dear oul Dublin, there’s a chance my details will appear in Art O’Leary’s little book of enemies. Thanks, but no thanks.”

As they used to say along the Border: Whatever you say, say nothing!

Government Minister, Michael Healy Rae is taking a libel case against his election rival, independent Remigration enthusiast Michelle Keane (kingdomwater.ie). She has persistently alleged election fraud, naming a female Garda Sergeant, and spending four days in Limerick prison. Recently she accused Minister Healy Rae of sending thugs to harass her and her family. This accusation triggered the libel case.

We have won the argument on mass migration. We don’t want it. But, short of an Israeli-style burning of hundreds of refugee hotels, how do we get our rulers to implement Remigration? Even if the elections weren’t rigged, we have to wait five years for the next one. Perfectly legal targetted lobbying, boycotting and public mockery of individuals involved in the Great Replacement can, possibly, encourage these people to nervous breakdowns, perfectly legal suicide or even transformation into honest men.

In unrelated news, the Election Commission boasted that many invalid names are on the electoral register. It is public knowledge for decades that there are many invalid names on the register, but somehow the problem persists. Cui bono?

Is Art O’Leary looking for a new job and he is advertising how good he is at “achieving social change” and rigging elections?

He tells us that three-quarters of the Irish want strict limits on immigration. Half of them are prepared to tell the nice man from the polling company that they think the Jews run the world. One third are ready to say they think White Irish politicians are deliberately importing Africans to replace us.

But the elections he oversaw showed that at least 90% of voters decided to vote for political parties that enthusiastically advocate for the Great Replacement.

If there is a conspiracy, then Art O’Leary is one of the smug, gloating conspirators. Even Trump doesn’t scare him: he knows Trump loves Jews and as along as Art shows how much he loves the Jews too, Art thinks he is safe. (He isn’t safe, of course, no matter how loyal he is. There was many a loyal servant who was sacrificed by his master.)

Perhaps you, dear reader, could help take Art down a peg?

Email or telephone contact from abroad makes them nervous (Brian.dawson@electoralcommission.ie / 086 0749344). Brian is their paid spokesman, but if you ask him questions about election rigging, you will find it almost impossible to get him on the phone.

If you tell them you are from a Jewish group and you’re thinking about putting him on your group’s enemies list because of his anti-Semitic questions, that would get his attention. Or you could tell him you’re working on a comedy skit about rigging elections and you’re looking for good quality images of himself and his team so you can mock and insult them for the benefit of a worldwide audience, protected by your U.S. free speech rights. If a congressman or a state-level politician or even a small-town mayor in Appalachia could be persuaded to write a letter expressing concern about the Irish elections, that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons…

As the Welsh say: Dyfal donc torri carreg. Many hits cut the rock. The rock does not break the first time you hit it with the hammer. But keep hitting it and eventually, it will break. If Brian Dawson takes ten or a hundred calls about election rigging, it will be water off a ducks’ back. But if he takes thousands of calls, it will have an effect on his mental health.

The Imitation of electoral democracy in Europe

/4 Comments/in /by
Democracy has ceased to exist in Europe. Now it’s just a cover for all rogue shenanigans of the Western establishment.

Year by year the actions of Europe, accustomed to cast itself as a birthplace of world democracy, are becoming more and more controversial. Any threat to either the entrenched establishment or its interests makes European elites ignore principles of law and go all out to eliminate it.

Thus, in 2024 in the first round of the presidential elections in Moldova pro-EU Maia Sandu gained just 42% of the votes, far less than “independent” surveys had predicted. Realizing the gravity of the situation as well as the consequences of opposition-leaning Alexandr Stoianoglo coming to power, 37 countries from Europe to North America opened polling stations in their territories by the beginning of the presidential runoff. The majority, secured by votes from abroad, let Sandu win the elections. Europe, convinced of its own victory, breathed a sigh of relief — the threat posed by Stoianoglo had been neutralized.

Presidential elections in Romania in 2024 became one more blatant example of utter disregard for all democratic principles. Anti-Western Calin Georgescu, undesirable by the European establishment, gained the day, winning the first round of the election. As the moment for meddling was lost, the results were simply annulled under the pretext of foreign interference and vote rigging without any compelling proofs. Moreover, Georgescu was arrested for attempted “incitement to actions against the constitutional order” that made his participation in new elections impossible.

Such a rigorous control over the internal situation in Romania is conditioned by its crucial role for the European Union because of its importance for the war in Ukraine. Taking into account the course for militarization set by Europe in March, 2025, losing such an important logistics center for supplying arms to Kyiv would make lots of troubles for Brussels. That is why the presidential election rerun resulted in extreme vigilance of the EU. Brussels couldn’t let another candidate, reluctant to strictly adhere to the policy of the bloc, come to power.

That is why, reacting proactively and preparing the ground for annulling election results in case of a victory by George Simion, another politician unacceptable to the establishment, Romania’s Foreign Ministry claimed that some traces of foreign interference had been found. Later it turned out that an attempt to influence the election results appeared to be the real case. However, this meddling was in favor of pro-Western Nicusor Dan rather than “far-right” Simion.

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov stated that a Western European country asked him to silence conservative voices in Romania by restricting or banning users ahead of the May 18 presidential elections. Stressing his flat refusal, Durov pointed out that it was impossible to defend democracy by destroying it. His stance found support among the American establishment including Elon Musk and Richard Grenell, Trump’s presidential envoy for special missions.

On May 18, 2025, pro-EU centrist Nicusor Dan won the presidential runoff with 53,6% of the vote. These results shocked the world community as on May 4, 2025, in the first round only 21% voted for his candidacy. It’s really hard to believe that pro-Ukrainian Dan, loyal to the EU, gained such a robust support among Romanians without any rogue shenanigans for such a short period of time.

From now on, democracy is out of the question. Utter totalitarianism and the desire to keep control of everyone and everything that could harm the interests of the political elites are driving forces of the European establishment. The fight against undesirables always was and always will be, but lately they are accomplishing their goals by any means necessary. Democracy be damned. They don’t even try to conceal it. The voice of the people has been almost obliterated by the sham of imitating democratic electoral procedures. It’s high time for Europeans to make their choice, whether to reconcile to these circumstances or put up a struggle for their voice and freedom.

Jonathan Schiff is a conservative, engineer, his interests also include geopolitics and political analysis. He can be reached at jonathan.schiff@proton.me

Reversing the Decline in White Fertility

/14 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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