Cohen's Commentary

On this point, I agree with the author. Gentile (non-Jewish), or shall I say goyim, altruism is something that every Jew should fear. Whenever goyim have forsaken their own vices for the greater good of their own ethnicities, communities and nations, the Jewish people have historically suffered, usually in the form of expulsion.

Let me recap how many times this has happened. We're all familiar, of course, with the expulsion of Jews from Ancient Egypt, and in 580BC Nebuchadnezzar chased the Jews all over arabia. Diaspora Jews would later find themselves on-the-go for the next two milleniums. In 250AD, the goyim expelled Jews from Carthage; 415: Alexandria; 554: Diocese of Clement (France); 561: Diocese of Uzzes (France); 612: Visigoth Spain; 642: Visigoth Empire; 855: Italy; 876: Sens; 1012: Mayence; 1181: France; 1290: England; 1306: France; 1348: Switzerland; 1349: Hielbronn (Germany); 1349: Hungary; 1388: Strasbourg; 1394: Germany; 1394: France; 1422: Austria; 1424: Fribourg & Zurich; 1426: Cologne; 1432: Savory; 1438: Mainz; 1439: Augsburg; 1446: Bavaria; 1453: Franconis; 1453: Breslau; 1454: Wurzburg; 1485: Vincenza (Italy); 1492: Spain; 1495: Lithuania; 1497: Portugal; 1499: Germany; 1514: Strasbourg; 1519: Regensburg; 1540: Naples; 1542: Bohemia; 1550: Genoa; 1551: Bavaria; 1555: Pesaro; 1559: Austria; 1561: Prague; 1567: Wurzburg; 1569: Papal States; 1571: Brandenburg; 1582: Netherlands; 1593: Brandenburg, Austria; 1597: Cremona, Pavia & Lodi; 1614: Frankfort; 1615: Worms; 1619: Kiev; 1649: Ukraine; 1654: LittleRussia; 1656: Lithuania; 1669: Oran (North Africa); 1670: Vienna; 1712: Sandomir; 1727: Russia; 1738: Wurtemburg; 1740: Little Russia; 1744: Bohemia; 1744: Livonia; 1745: Moravia; 1753: Kovad (Lithuania); 1761: Bordeaux; 1772: Jews deported to the Pale of Settlement (Russia); 1775: Warsaw; 1789: Alace; 1804: Villages in Russia; 1808: Villages & Countrysides (Russia); 1815: Lubeck & Bremen; 1815: Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria; 1820: Bremes; 1843: Russian Border Austria & Prussia; 1862: Area in the U.S. under Grant's Jurisdiction; 1866: Galatz, Romania; 1919: Bavaria (foreign born Jews); 1938-45: Nazi Controlled Areas.

Why did this happen? Gentile altruism.

It happened because goyim cared more about their folk and communities than they cared about themselves. And it can happen again. It is happening already with the rise of nationalism. Although I'm inclined to feel a sense of pride at the achievements of my Jewish tribe, as detailed in Professor Kevin MacDonald's book, Culture of Critique, I am also mortified that Gentiles have taken notice of it.

Jews are taking this very seriously.

Scott Huettel, an associate professor of psychology at Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, N.C, and Dharol Tankersley, a graduate student at Duke, published findings in the Jan. 21 online issue of Nature Neuroscience, illustrating a nexus between altruism and heightened activity in the posterior superior temporal cortex (pSTC) of the human brain. Huettel defines altruism as acts "that intentionally benefit another organism, incur no direct personal benefit, and sometimes bear a personal cost."

Fortunately, fellow jew, Paul Sanberg, director of the Center of Excellence for Aging and Brain Repair at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, in Tampa, publicly challenged these findings. The last thing we need are Gentiles in the scientific community exploring ways to increase higher levels of pSTC. But we've already known what causes it:

Perceptual models suggest that an early-developing and rudimentary capacity to perceive another agent's action as self-generated and goal-oriented may form the basis of empathic perception and, in turn, altruism. Neuroimaging studies indicate that brain regions in the pSTC contribute to the perception of agency. Both low-level perceptual tasks, such as target detection and prediction of complex movements, and more complex tasks, such as consideration of other agents' beliefs or (inter) actions in the environment evoke activation in the pSTC. For example, right pSTC activation increases when people watch geometrical shapes performing seemingly purposeful acts, but not when the shapes move at random. The pSTC may support rudimentary computations about the meaning of perceived actions, which might in turn subserve more complex social capacities, including empathy and theory of mind. Thus, the functional integrity of the pSTC may be a prerequisite for prosocial traits such as empathy and altruism.

In plain Yiddish, the perception of purposelessness lowers pSTC stimulation, consequently lowering altruism (new scientific terminology, but an old game for Jews). Gentiles need to perceive the world around them as lacking order and purpose. They need to step out of the orderly machine that drives them to higher states of evolution and consciousness, and into a world of purposeless individualism.

Relax. The circumcised sons of Abraham are on the job.

Fellow jew, Nadine Strossen, is second in command of the ACLU. She was given the "Woman of Distinction" award from the Women's League of Conservative Judaism and the "Women who Dared" award from the National Council of Jewish Women. Below her is Steven Shapiro, who commands an army of 90 full-time lawyers, with an active docket of cases against Gentiles. Geri Rozanski, former director of field operations for the American Jewish Committee, is another loyal Jew. Together, they've taken on the tasks.

Although the groundwork for racial desegregation had already been laid by jewish icon Franz Boas, Shapiro's sayanin, with their sophisticated attacks upon Eurocentrism, would make Franz Boas proud. They champion racial justice for non-Whites, affirmative action, racial profiling and immigrants rights.

Speaking of immigration "rights," I tip my yalmuke to the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: they pushed so hard to get amnesty for illegal aliens. Mui Bueno! A special thanks also to Jewish Senators Boxer(D-CA), Coleman(R-MN), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein(D-CA), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (D-CT), Specter (R-PA), Schumer (D-NY) and Wyden (D-OR) who voted in favor of amnesty, and to all the jewish PAC's who paid off enough of the remaining Gentile Senators to get eleven million jobless, criminal wetbacks into this country. Just what America needs!

Homosexualism and transgenderism are both antithetical to the family unit, which, if functioning correctly, is a microcosm of progressive, communal order. That is why Shapiro's starched-shirt attorneys defend he-she's and she-he's and their various isms.

It's also why Jews are the mouthpiece of homosexual organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, co-chaired by Loren S. Ostrow, who is also President of the Board of Congregation Kol Ami, a predominately gay and lesbian synagogue in West Hollywood, CA, and formerly served as Co-Chair of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center's Board of Directors.

Alan Klein, another trustworthy Jew, is co-founder of Queer Nation. In 1997, a year television critics will remember as the "Year of the Lesbian," Mr. Klein played a pivotal role in the international media frenzy that accompanied Ellen Degeneres' historic announcement. As National Communications Director and chief spokesperson for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), he orchestrated the media's Ellen coverage from day one. Mr. Klein also co-founded the successful multimedia campaign STOPDRLAURA.COM. Klein carries on the fight for Gentile individualism by serving as Communications Director for Rainbow25 ...

Because Christianity lends itself to the integrity of family units, order and a strong sense of purpose, it hasn't escaped the ACLU's Goydar. In 1925, the ACLU defended biology teacher John Scopes, in the famous "monkey trial," against the charge that he had broken Tennessee's fundamentalist-inspired ban on the teaching of evolution. In the 1930s, the ACLU supported the right of Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren not to salute the American flag, which would have violated their religious beliefs. In 1947, the ACLU participated in the landmark case, Everson v. Board of Education, in which the United States Supreme Court proclaimed: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We would not approve the slightest breach."

In the 1950s and 1960s, our loyal jews successfully challenged official prayer and bible reading in public schools. The Supreme Court ruled, in Engel v. Vitale and in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, that school prayer and Bible reading are unconstitutional. In the 1980s, the ACLU successfully fought bills introduced in 23 state legislatures which required public schools to teach the biblical version of the earth's creation. In the early 1990s, the ACLU lobbied for congressional passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which strengthens protection for the rights of "religious minorities." More here.

One method of achieving the separation of family units has been to drive a wedge between genders. That is why our loyal Jews in the ACLU have been strong defenders of womens' rights and why so many other Jews extend this branch of "individualism" to the goyim (it's not exactly an olive branch, but the goyim don't seem to know the difference).

Gloria Felt, a loyal Jew, is the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Eric Schaff is Chairman of the National Abortion Federation. R. Gaull Silberman is Chairman of the Independent Womens' Forum. Leslie A. Calman is the Executive Vice President of National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund (NOWLDEF), with Lynn Schafran as the Director of the National Judicial Education Program, and Stephen Hammerman as the Vice Chairman of the Board. Malcolm Lazin is the Executive Director of Equality Forum, which is the largest national, and international forum for gay, lesbian and bisexual civil rights.

Vivienne Kramer is Chair of the New England Leather Alliance and Chairperson of the Board of Directors for the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. On New Voices, she explains "I probably wouldn’t play [engage in BDSM] on a Friday night,' she says, merging the two practices into her own version of religious observance." Hymm. She didn't owe the goyim any explanations, but okay...

Marcia Pally founded Feminists for Free Expression, whose President is loyal Jew, Marilyn Fitterman, and whose secretary is loyal Jew, Jayme Waxman, who is a writer, producer, performer, sex educator and outspoken advocate for women's sexual liberation. She is currently pursuing her masters in human sexuality education and teaches sexuality classes at a well-know adult toyshop in downtown Manhattan. She is the Associate Producer of the television show Naked New York and a columnist for Playgirl Magazine. She produced 'Love Bytes' with Bob Berkowitz and hosted her own show 'Aural Fixation' on WSEX Radio.

Abby Ehmann is a member of the board of Feminists for Free Expression. In her own words, she is a "Sexpert" and "New York's preeminent female smutmeister." This faithful Jew began a career in the adult entertainment industry as an Associate Editor at Penthouse Forum. She has also served as Consulting Editor of Masquerade Erotic Newsletter, Girls of Outlaw Biker and Erotica Online. She has written for many sex-oriented publications from Screw and Hustler to Forum and New Rave."

I'm happy to announce that the entire pornographic industry is heavily larded with God's Chosen people. Fellow Jew, Nathan Abrams, boasts: “A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer that the ‘triple exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue’ Jews. Smut peddlers." Jewish Quarterly (UK), [print edition] 2005, p. 27-30. And just why is that? Al Goldstein (fellow Jew and publisher of Screw magazine) answered this question on Lukeford. “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”

This is why Jews, whether holding the reins to civil rights groups like the ACLU or leading the guilds of feminists, homosexuals or pornographers, have always been faithful advocates of Gentile "individualism," although, as we all know, individualism really has no place in the party line of international Jewry. Can you imagine the consequences to Israel if Rosa Parks lived to ride on this Israeli bus? Israel would be teaming with Mutti shvartz!

But I digress. A small amount of controlled, Gentile altruism can be good.

The only time---and I mean the only time---Gentiles can be allowed to behave altruistically is when they sacrifice themselves and their freedom for the greater good of the Jewish people or Israel. The less than finite war in Iraq (and future wars with Syria and Iran), demonstrates that this artificial form of Gentile altruism, once guided toward our own interests, can actually serve the Jewish people well. And, it also allows the altruistic type of goyim to feel somewhat true to their own in-group instincts, however misguided, adding a slight texture of realism to the fantasy world painted by our other loyal Jews on the entertainment front, Red Summerstone (also known as Murray Rothstein), Michael Eisner and Spielberg.

So long as the goyim stay glued to Murray Rothstein's MTV and embrace this multi-cultural morality of individualism, they will not care what happens to them as a whole. The goyim certainly won't care enough to be "altruistic."

cohenreport.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-it-can-happen-again.html

Eclipse of the Normal

Nearly a century ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote of “the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal.” Today the very word normal is almost taboo. Perish the thought that there is anything abnormal—let alone sinful, vicious, perverted, abominable, sick, unhealthy, or just plain wrong—about sodomy. (Unsanitary? Let’s not go there.)

As one T-shirt legend puts it, “I’m proud of my gay son.” Sure you are, lady. I’ll bet when he told you, you blurted, “O darling, you make me so proud!” I mean, like, who wouldn’t? And then you went out and bragged to all the neighbors.

And do you enjoy picturing what he and his “partners” do together? If you’re curious, you can probably get the idea from a DVD. Just go into an “adult” DVD store and ask where the anal-sex section is. This should make you just burst with maternal pride.

Let me lay my cards on the table. I’m what they call homophobic, and I believe God loves me just the way I am. He may even regard homophobia as one of my finer qualities. To a much lesser degree, I’m also lesbophobic. I realize that lesbianism is also a form of sodomy, but that strikes me as a rather technical point, because, in my rather limited experience, it doesn’t involve the sort of repulsive practices male sodomy does. How often have you heard of a lesbian dying of AIDS?

This is hardly the place to discuss sexual practices in clinical detail. Such discussions are freely available, indeed unavoidable, elsewhere. To add to them here would be, as the old saying has it, carrying coals to Newcastle.

But I digress. (I wondered when you’d notice.) Most people realize that God made two sexes. Even the phrase gay and lesbian is an attempt to ape the natural symmetry of nature’s (two and only two) sexes. Male and female homosexuality are only superficially parallel; in fact, they are wholly different and dissimilar maladjustments. The male brand is madly promiscuous and indiscriminate; the female brand tends to be monogamous. This will surely be borne out by the upshot of the craze for same-sex “marriage”—an absurd contradiction in terms if ever there was one. (You might as well expect two bulls, or two lions, to form a lasting union.)

We are witnessing what might be called the eclipse of the normal—an eccentric phase of modern history in which huge numbers of people feign ignorance of what is perfectly obvious. The polite taboos on calling abortion “killing” and sodomy “perversion” are mere symptoms of this; Barack Obama, with his sycophantic solicitude for “gays,” is typical of the modern liberal mind-set. “Who is to say what is ‘normal’?” is now thought to be an insoluble conundrum.

Well, who is to say that, in all the fantastic abundance of nature, there are only two sexes? Or is that another tough one? After all, members of some species of marine life can even change sexes. It’s clear that anybody who can’t answer such questions just doesn’t want them to be answered. All sane people know the answers, and it’s a waste of time arguing with a man who pretends not to know, even if he’s the president of the United States. This nonsense has been going on far too long.

Who could have imagined, a generation ago, that organized Sodom would achieve such cultural and political power in the United States? And so soon, at that! “We are all sodomites now,” exults Andrew Sullivan, and he has a point, at least a semantic one. The word sodomy, as he notes, used to comprise all sexual perversions, including contraception within marriage. The real sexual revolution came to pass quietly, when contraception became generally accepted as a legitimate part of marriage. After that, it became hard to argue against virtually any sexual practice, inside or outside wedlock, short of rape. The revolution in morals occurred almost before anyone noticed it. And today it is taken for granted.

Few of us can now remember how sternly nearly all Christians disapproved of birth control before 1931, when the Anglican Church opened the floodgates with a few seemingly innocuous exceptions in certain cases of hardship. By now the old standards of chastity have melted away like ice in August. In today’s terms, they are well-nigh incomprehensible.

Modern man is thoroughly cut off from his past. He and his ancestors would be total strangers to each other. The essential problem is a new form of hypocrisy in which we all feel pressure to affect ignorance of things everyone used to know—and which most people still do know.

To put it bluntly, our moral standards would horrify our forebears. They would gasp in disbelief at the things we now accept as normal, for the simple reason that any civilized society would recognize those things as highly abnormal.

This article first appeared in the April 2010 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. By Joe Sobran.

NATO tells Russia: We'll keep the heroin flowing

NATO Wednesday rejected Russian calls for it to eradicate opium poppy fields in Afghanistan, saying the best way for Moscow to help control the drug would be to give more assistance against the insurgency.

Russia's anti-drugs czar, Victor Ivanov, met NATO ambassadors in Brussels and proposed that NATO troops be given a U.N. mandate and an obligation to eradicate Afghan opium crops, which were killing 30,000 Russians a year.

(Afghan opium kills 100,000 people every year worldwide" - Wikipedia)

But NATO spokesman James Appathurai said the drug problem had to be handled carefully to avoid alienating local people. He said the alliance was continuing efforts to target drug lords and drug labs, but added at a news briefing:

"We cannot be in a situation where we remove the only source of income of people who live in the second poorest country in the world without being able to provide them with an alternative."

Afghanistan is the world's biggest producer of poppies used to make opium, the key ingredient in the production of heroin.

Appathurai said NATO understood Russian concerns, given its estimated 200,000 heroin and morphine addicts and the tens of thousands dying each year.

Wed Mar 24, 2010
reuters.com/article/idUKTRE62N56U20100324

Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide

By F. Roger Devlin

What is “sexual liberation”? It is usually spoken of by way of contrast with the constraints of marriage and family life. It would seem to be a condition under which people have more choice than under the traditional system of monogamy. Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy” seemed to offer men more choices than just sleeping with the same woman every night for fifty years. Feminism promised women it would liberate them from “domestic drudgery” and turn marriage and motherhood into just one among many lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, there was always an element of free choice even regarding marriage: one may choose whether, and to a certain extent whom, one will marry. Indeed, marriage is perhaps the most important example of a momentous life choice. But on the traditional view you cannot make your choice and still have it. Once one takes the vow and enters into the covenant, ipso facto one no longer has a choice. In other words, marriage is a one-way nonrefundable ticket. Your wife is your choice even if she eventually displeases you in certain ways, as all mortal wives necessarily must. Keeping your choice of mate open forever is called “celibacy.”

Ultimately, the ideal of sexual liberation rests upon a philosophical confusion which I call the absolutizing of choice. The illusion is that society could somehow be ordered to allow us to choose without thereby diminishing our future options. Birth control, abortion, the destigmatizing of fornication and homosexuality, arbitrary and unilateral divorce—all these have been pitched to us as ways of expanding our choices.

Now, I am in favor of giving people all the choice they can stand. But I would like to be careful about what this means: analysis will reveal that the term “choice” has distinct and partly contradictory senses which may not be equally applicable in all contexts. In other words, choice is not a single thing which can be expanded indefinitely at no cost; the appearance of greater choice in one area can be shown to entail reducing one’s possibilities in another.

One perfectly legitimate sense of choosing is doing as one desires. When we are asked to choose a flavor of ice cream, e.g., all that is meant is deciding which flavor would be the most pleasing to us at the moment. That is because the alternative of chocolate or strawberry involves no deep, long-term consequences. But not all choices can be like this.

Consider, for example, a young man’s choice of vocation. One of the charms of youth is that it is a time when possibility overshadows actuality. One might become a brain surgeon, or a mountain climber, or a poet, or a statesman, or a monk. It is natural and good for boys to dream about all the various things they might become, but such daydreams can breed a dangerous illusion: that, where anything is still possible, everything will be possible. This is only true in the case of trivial and inconsequential matters. It is possible to sample all of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors on thirty-one successive days. But it is not possible to become a brain-surgeon and a mountain climber and a poet and a statesman and a monk. A man who tries to do so will only fail in all his endeavors.

The reason for this, of course, is that important enterprises demand large amounts of time and dedication, but the men who undertake them are mortal. For every possibility we realize, there will be a hundred we must leave forever unrealized; for every path we choose to take, there will be a hundred we must forever renounce. The need for choice in this sense is what gives human life much of its seriousness. Those who drift from one thing to another, unable to make up their minds or finish anything they have begun, reveal thereby that they do not grasp an essential truth about the human condition. They are like children who do not wish to grow up.

Now, sexual choices, especially for women, are analogous to a man’s in regard to his calling. Inherently, they cannot be made as easy and reversible as choosing flavors of ice cream. But this is what sexual liberation attempts to do. The underlying motive seems to be precisely a fear of difficult choices and a desire to eliminate the need for them. For example, a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty (as large numbers of women now apparently believe). What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. Like the dilettante who dabbles in five professions without finally pursuing any, the liberated woman and the playboy want to keep all their options open forever: they want eternal youth.

The attempt to realize a utopia of limitless choice in the real world has certain predictable consequences: notably, it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

Most of those who have obeyed the new commandment to follow all of their hearts’ desire do not appear to me to be reveling in a garden of earthly delights. Instead I am reminded of the sad characters from the pages of Chekhov: sleepwalking through life, forever hoping that tomorrow things will somehow be changed for the better as they blindly allow opportunities for lasting happiness to slip through their fingers. But this is merely the natural outcome of conceiving of a human life as a series of revocable and inconsequential choices. We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open. There is a hectic and never-ending jockeying for position: fighting off the competition while keeping an eye out for a better deal elsewhere. The latest “singles” fad, I am told, is something called speed dating, where men and women interact for three minutes, then go on to someone else at the sound of a bell.

Sex belongs to early adulthood: one transient phase of human life. It is futile to attempt to abstract it from its natural and limited place in the life-cycle and make it an end in itself. Sustainable civilization requires that more important long term desires like procreation be given preference over short term wishes which conflict with them, such as the impulse to fornicate.

The purpose of marriage is not to place shackles upon people or reduce their options, but to enable them to achieve something which most are simply too weak to achieve without the aid of a social institution. Certain valuable things require time to ripen, and you cannot discover them unless you are faithful to your task and patient. Marriage is what tells people to stick to it long enough to find out what happens. Struggling with such difficulties—and even periods of outright discouragement—is part of what allows the desires of men and women to mature and come into focus. Older couples who have successfully raised children together, and are rewarded by seeing them marry and produce children of their own, are unlikely to view their honeymoon as the most important event of their marriage.

People cannot know what they want when they are young. A young man may imagine happiness to consist in living on Calypso’s Island, giving himself over to sexual pleasure without ever incurring family obligations; but all serious men eventually find such a life unsatisfying. The term “playboy” was originally derogatory, implying that the male who makes pursuing women his highest end is not to be taken seriously. The type of man who thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s able to have one night stands will never raise sons capable of carrying on the fight for our embattled civilization.

Confusion about one’s desires is probably greater in young women, however. For this reason, it is misleading to speak of women “wanting marriage.” A young woman leafing through the pages of Modern Bride does not yet know what marriage is; all she wants is to have her wedding day and live happily ever after. She may well not have the slightest notion of the duties she will be taking on.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

But without the understanding that marriage is an inherently irreversible covenant, both men and women succumb to the illusion that divorce will solve the “problem” of dissatisfaction in marriage. They behave like the farmer who clears, plows, and plants a field only to throw up his hands on the first really hot and sweaty day of work, exclaiming: “Farming is no fun! I’m going to do something else!” And like that farmer, they have no one to blame but themselves when they fail to harvest any crops.

Understanding the marriage bond as an irreversible covenant similarly influences the way economic activity and property are understood. Rather than being a series of short-term responses to circumstance, labor and investment become an aspect of family life transcending the natural life span of any individual. From a mere means to consumption, wealth becomes a family inheritance. In Burke’s fine words: “The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends most to the perpetuation of society itself.” By contrast, the characteristically modern view of property finds its clearest expression in the title of a bestselling 1998 financial planning guide: Die Broke. This amounts to a scorched earth policy for our own civilization. Perhaps someday the author will favor us with a sequel entitled Die Alone or Die Childless.

But not everyone is equally receptive to this kind of message. Women in parts of West Africa are averaging over eight children apiece. The revolt against marriage and childrearing is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon. It is primarily in white countries that the birthrate has fallen below replacement level. It would behoove racially conscious whites, therefore, not to ignore the sexual side of the revolt against our civilization, nor shortsightedly to limit our attention to the single issue of miscegenation. The homosexual bathhouse view of sex as merely a means to personal pleasure attacks our race from within and at its source. As much as with inimical races and racial ideologies, our survival will depend upon our ability to organize effective resistance.

When we look around at all the forces arrayed against our race, it can be daunting. How can we fight them all? Are circumstances right? Would we be ready even if they were? And what to do in the meantime? The situation becomes a lot less daunting when we realize that the first battle, and the first victory, must take place within ourselves.