Counter-Currents
2,179 words
The more one thinks about it, the more obvious it becomes that, where race is concerned, sex is of central importance. A group’s sexual behavior, marriage, reproductive patterns (having or not having children), and family strength are decisive for racial survival and expansion.
The white race, everywhere on earth, is failing to reproduce itself. It is demographically collapsing, and will be the first major race of mankind—formerly consisting of hundreds of millions of people—to have been deliberately wiped out.
According to Italian demographer Massimo Livi-Bacci, “the decisive factor in [recent] fertility decline” (emphasis added) among whites was the widespread adoption of contraception. He therefore draws a sharp distinction between the historical norm of “natural fertility” and today’s “voluntary fertility control” (behavior determined by birth control ideology). (A Concise History of World Population, 4th ed., Blackwell, 2007, p. 240 n. 14)
The traditional or commonsense point of view about this aspect of human behavior has been expressed by demographic historian Ole. J. Benedictow:
All known societies have normative systems securing a level of fertility that prevents their populations from dying out, that secure the survival of their populations and their continuation as societies. This generalization arises from the inherent behavioural patterns of the individual persons who constitute populations and form societies, aimed (in accordance with evolutionary theory) at making it likely that they will, under the general social circumstances moulding their lives, succeed in passing on their genetic material and securing the continuity of their basic social network of descent group and local society. (The Black Death, 1346-1353: The Complete History, 2004, p. 255)
A prerequisite for the effective operation of this natural law is that a group retain its power to formulate and enforce its own distinctive customs. It is plain that the “normative systems” insuring replacement fertility and group survival over time have ceased to function among Europeans.
Livi-Bacci refers to current fertility rates as “dangerously low,” so low that they “might jeopardize the development of European society.” Following demographic convention, he does not explain to his readers that a large proportion of births in Europe and neo-European societies are to non-whites, or the result of interracial unions with non-whites. Most people who read a sentence like his will unthinkingly conjure up an image of a white Europe, which is not accurate.
Crucially from our perspective, there are far fewer white births than his or any other official, racially-aggregated demographic statistics suggest. Second Demographic Transition theory, an influential academic paradigm, views ultra-low European birth rates as structural and permanent, as does Livi-Bacci. Absent revolutionary change, these trends will destroy the white race.
Contraception’s Great Leap Forward in the United States occurred when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first birth control pill, Enovid, in 1960, though various state laws continued to ban its sale. In 1965 the US Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut overturned Connecticut’s statute prohibiting the sale of the Pill to married women. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended Griswold’s holding to unmarried couples. By the early 1970s a majority of U.S. women had access to the Pill.
A racial group’s reproductive boundary (sex, marriage, procreation, and family patterns) is evidently far more fragile and vulnerable to cultural, psychological, and behavioral manipulation by hostile groups and rulers than had previously been imagined. Radical alteration of behavior brought about by resolute, top-down manipulation of culture can and will override innate individual or group biological predispositions that would otherwise intervene to preserve and replicate racial or ethnic DNA. (Keep in mind that anyone who managed to obtain the upper hand and possessed the requisite will could reverse engineer the destructive process and direct it against today’s murderous elite. Minor modifications would be necessary, but nothing inherent in nature would prevent it.)
The war against the white race is being waged on a multitude of fronts. Contraception, which targets sex and procreation and hugely impacts intimate sexual, marital, and family relationships, is one of them.
Contraception is heavily ideologized. Though its public propaganda is frequently couched in benign, even unobjectionable terms, the true impulse behind it is masked. Contraception masquerades as “family planning” and the prevention of “unwanted pregnancies,” where children are viewed as “accidental by-products of sexual intercourse.”
Drill down a bit and you discover the ideological centrality of “woman as [non-]childbearer.” We’re all familiar with the dogma, exemplified by the following two randomly-selected comments by different women (such statements always sound the same; I have compressed them slightly, but the original spelling, grammar, and punctuation have been retained).
I started the mini pill about two years ago. I have never regretted it. I can have sex when I want to and not get pregnant. I am 28 and don’t want to have kids for a few more years. What next do these crazy religious nuts want to stop all forms of birth control. Do they realize that pregnancy can actually kill some women? Hey I am an ultra consertative! Keep religious nuts and government off my body and out of my personal business!!!!!!!
And:
My body and my choice to not have kids is none of their business. I have the Paragard IUD. They’ll have to literally rip it from my womb. After they outlaw abortion, they’re coming for our birth control next. They want us barefoot and pregnant. PATHETIC.
The female’s sole and unlimited ability, conferred and consecrated by the centralized state and culture, to plan or avoid pregnancies, free of all responsibilities to male partners, family members, the racial community, or even a newly conceived child, has decisively overturned, in the smug opinion of two leading academic birth control promoters, “the traditional [i.e., Aryan] concepts of the role and status of women in society and helped to make the relationships between the sexes more equal” (Vern L. and Bonnie Bullough, Contraception: A Guide to Birth Control Methods, Prometheus Books, 1990, p. 6).
Despite efforts by proponents to construct an august genealogy for birth control, effective contraceptives were not widely available, or used, until the mid-20th century. By then whites had lost control of their culture, so widespread radical change in sexual, marital, family, and childbearing attitudes and behavior occurred almost instantaneously.
Perceived moral acceptability of birth control by Americans, 2012
Today, contraception is universal among women of reproductive age according to the US Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics.[1] An analysis of the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth found that 99 percent of all women who had ever had intercourse had used at least one contraceptive method.
Of the large sample surveyed for the study (deemed representative of 62 million women aged 15 to 44), 62 percent were using contraception on the day they were interviewed. The remaining 38 percent were not using contraception because they were currently pregnant or postpartum, trying to become pregnant, sterile for medical (non-contraceptive) reasons, unable to conceive, or had not had intercourse recently or ever.
It is notable that birth control studies conventionally utilize the age range of 15 to 44 years for women. The low end for sexual activity and potential pregnancy among girls, 15, must now be normative. The age of consent for sexual intercourse for both boys and girls will doubtless continually be lowered.
The CDC study revealed that the proportion of girls who used a method of contraception at their first premarital intercourse had risen greatly in the 20 years between 1985 (when it was 56 percent), and 2005-2008 (84 percent). But in 1985 the Pill and other contraceptive methods had already been available for many years, so the “low” initial 56 percent figure represents a huge leap up from historical norms. Revolutionary social change occurred over an extremely short time span.
The conventional upper limit for women utilized in contraceptive studies, 44, suggests the age at which reproduction must effectively cease, because the unmistakable obsession of the ideologues is prevention of births.
This obsession can be seen in the works of sexologist Vern Bullough, a deceased Left-wing academic and birth control advocate who was originally a Mormon from Utah. Not a practitioner of what he preached, he was twice married and had four children. His scholarship, in the words of the New York Times, “fueled a lifelong interest in activism for gay, racial [anti-white] and feminist causes.”
Bullough approved of masturbation, mutual masturbation, anal intercourse, and oral-genital sex (fellatio and cunnilingus), all of which he viewed within a birth control framework: “Obviously, to become pregnant it is necessary to bring the sperm into contact with the egg and this cannot be done if sexual intercourse involves other orifices than the vagina.”
This reminded me of the odious Jewish spokesman Philip Roth, who crows exultantly about the contemporary prevalence of fellatio, which had obviously been nonexistent in his youth. My impression is that he perceived this change as a victory of Jewish men over Aryan (or, as Jews put it, “Christian”) women.
In another book, Encyclopedia of Birth Control (ABC-CLIO, 2001), Bullough listed “Homosexuality as birth control” in the index, characterizing it as “non-fertile intercourse”: “Because sexual intercourse between members of the same sex cannot result in pregnancy, the [social] toleration or encouragement of homosexuality and lesbianism can be regarded as a means of population control” (p. 128).
Important background facts omitted from Bullough’s scrupulously sanitized New York Times obituary and Wikipedia entry (the latter mentions the journal’s title, but not its purpose or any other information), but noted by a homosexual writer, is that he was a member of the editorial board of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, a “scholarly” homosexual child-sex advocacy publication. He
maintained that pederasty, or intergenerational sex, was historically common. He always supported the work of Bruce Rind, even when Rind and the American Psychological Association were unanimously condemned by both houses of Congress for publishing Rind’s skillful synthesis of all previous studies of the effects of intergenerational sex. Like Harry Hay, Vern never denounced nambla [the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pedophile and pederasty advocacy group]. (“Vern Bullough, Our Greatest Sexologist, Dies at 77,” Gay & Lesbian Review, November 1, 2006)
In Bullough we see the strange link between the advocacy of sex among the young (in his case, actual adult sex with small boys of the same sex), and a commitment to extinguishing births in populations on a large scale. Whether the joinder is a function of contraceptive ideology per se, Left-wing dogma in the broader sense, or something else, is unclear.
Contraception seeks to prevent fertilization of the female egg (ovum) by male sperm. Post-coital contraceptives (“morning-after pills”), euphemistically called “emergency contraceptives,” are designed to disrupt or delay ovulation or fertilization necessary for pregnancy after unprotected intercourse has taken place. As recently as 1990, Bullough in Contraception referred to postcoital contraception as “early abortion” (p. 135). Moving forward along the time spectrum, there are abortifacients (“medical abortions,” drugs that induce abortion after conception), and surgical abortions. The objective at each stage is to prevent childbirth by any means necessary. Evidently the only behavior rejected by contraceptive ideologues that accomplishes their sacred objective is celibacy.
The primary change agents in all of this have been Establishment Leftists and Jews. These individuals and groups developed and funded the requisite anti-natalist technologies, spearheaded academic research and mass media propaganda, and rammed through the necessary legislation and judicial and administrative decisions to forcibly institutionalize and impose their social and biological agendas.
Vern Bullough asserted that the Rockefeller Foundation was the primary supporter of sex research in this country for over 40 years, from before WWI to after WWII. “Their importance,” he wrote, “is hard to overestimate. In fact, in the period between 1914 and 1954, the Rockefellers were almost the sole support of sex research in the United States” (“The Rockefellers and Sex Research,” The Journal of Sex Research 21 (May 1985): 113-25).
The Rockefellers, of course, were white. But innumerable contraceptive ideologues, including Left-wing social activists, litigators, judges, legislators, publicists, academics, and the inventors of technologies such as the condom and the Pill, were Jews. Moreover, Rockefeller family “philanthropic” (social engineering would be a better term) organizations always employed many, many Jews in high salary, top-level administrative, research, and advocacy positions.
Banker David Rockefeller’s daughter Eileen feels “very blessed to have married into the richness” of Jewish culture. She and her Jewish husband have two children and are members of Ohavi Zedek Synagogue, the oldest and largest in Vermont. Like Harvard’s Robert Putnam, Eileen Rockefeller appears to have found a profound sense of psychological, emotional, and spiritual belonging among aliens that has admittedly been stamped out among our own people.
Contraception, like nuclear weapons, is a genie that has left the bottle. In responsible hands it would not be malicious but beneficial. But the way it is currently used, and the ideology driving it, is toxic to our people. It must never be forgotten that the imposition of measures intended to prevent births within a racial, ethnic, religious or national group constitutes a crime—the formal crime of genocide. The anti-white ruling class knows this, because its members invented genocide, and wrote the laws criminalizing it.
Notes
1. CDC data from William D. Mosher and Jo Jones, “Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982-2008,” Vital and Health Statistics 23, no. 29 (2010), available online in PDF format.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
13 comments
Though you focus on contraception rather than abortion, that chart in the center there seems to insinuate that 2012 is the high-tide of elite brainwashing. I came across this yesterday which suggests otherwise:
Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.
When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133.html#ixzz33E7h9JX8
Interestingly, the article on Politico suggests that the anti-abortion crusade was a more socially acceptable cover for the real issue: segregation! Needless to say, reader of CC are likely to have no problem with THAT.
It seems to me that the whole pro-choice/pro-life issue is (deliberately) malformed. Notice how the “prolifers” always haul out the Nazi scarecrow? The real issue is not total freedom vs. barefoot and pregnant, but the wise use of abortion in appropriate circumstances; should it be left to the woman or the State?
Leaving the issue to the woman, or perhaps both parties, rather than the state, is more in keeping with American, and perhaps Aryan, values; of course, that ASSUMES the woman and/or man HAS Aryan values.
And if not, WHY DO WE CARE IF THEY HAVE CHILDREN? As Evola pointed out (Ride the Tiger and elsewhere), the pro-growth position, which he first encountered under Mussolini, fails to account for the fact that in today’s world, most people shouldn’t reproduce; and even in the case of the Enlightened Man, the odds are against his children inheriting his values and passing them on.
Obviously Whites need to reproduce, but transcending the pro/anti false position, we would best survive if abortion, contraception and sterilization was encouraged, subsidized, and maybe COMPULSORY for the darker races among us. Needless to say, that position is anathema to BOTH sides, Left (hooray for darkies!) and Right (eugenics is Nazi!)
@James J. O’Meara
No, the ladies definitely don’t have Aryan values, and won’t have them until they are on TV. Nevertheless, it is always a pleasure to read your comments/articles James. Take care Sir.
Female champions of birth control and the “child free” life most always posture like sex goddesses, as implied in your two early quotes. I’ve read countless mainstream media editorials where the writer calmly claims to have “lovers” (plural) and hints that, beneath their professional veneer, they’re hopping on cocks left and right, living hedonistic lives of non-stop screwing.
This linkage between birth control and hypersexual lifestyles is so strong that, even in this article critical of birth control, there’s the running assumption that all these whites are having active sex lives.
This is all a lie. As people become less fertile, they have lower sex drives. The young white generation now, more “sexually liberated” than ever before in both the culture and in birth control accessibility….is the most sexless culture ever. Not only is Generation Y not having sex, they don’t even WANT to fuck.
The sexual frequency of young Americans is extremely low….and to my knowledge, none of the surveys which reveal this even control for homosexuality or race! I would imagine that most 20 year-old whites are people for whom “sex” means fapping to internet porn, but for whom actually inserting a cock into a pussy is “repulsive” (which is how an increasing number of young women are describing the act of fucking).
The Jewess feminists and advocates of “child free” life might well be horny sex hounds; I don’t know. But look twice at these white feminists and social justice activists: they are asexual. Straight up. Look at the “Slut Walk” activists: none of those self-proclaimed sluts have any sex drives at all.
All the “sexual liberation” taught by the elites and dutifully echoed by lower classes is nothing but a vain gloss on their own prematurely depleted sex organs.
http://www.returnofkings.com/23597/the-growing-epidemic-of-sexual-dysfunction-among-women
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/3/us-teens-young-adults-doing-it-less-study-says/?utm-source=RSS_Feed&utm-medium=RSS
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/why-generation-y-less-sex
As I’ve plainly observed the shocking sexlessness in my own generation and generations younger than mine (I’m in my early 30s), I have often remembered this quote from the sci-fi book ‘Children of Men’ in a society in which nobody can have children:
“One might have imagined that with the fear of pregnancy permanently removed, and the unerotic paraphernalia of pills, rubber and ovulation arithmetic no longer necessary, sex would be freed for new and imaginative delights. The opposite has happened. Even those men and women who would normally have no wish to breed apparently need the assurance that they could have a child if they wished. Sex totally divorced from procreation has become almost meaninglessly acrobatic.”
David wrote:
As people become less fertile, they have lower sex drives. The young white generation now, more “sexually liberated” than ever before in both the culture and in birth control accessibility….is the most sexless culture ever. Not only is Generation Y not having sex, they don’t even WANT to fuck.
One of the reasons for the lower fertility rates & sex drives is the food. Most people are not being adequately nourished from the diet since many food packages have High Fructose Corn Syrup and some forms of genetically modified foods.
Excerpts from http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/to-stop-ww-iii-just-tell-the-truth-about-epicyte-and-gmo-corn/
In 2001 Epicyte corporation of San Diego spliced a protein from infertile Mexican women into corn.
(snip)
That gene the Epicyte company spliced into corn makes men and women permanently sterile.
Go to the link to read the rest of the article.
I definitely agree that modern diet is, almost without a doubt, the primary cause of all the modern health epidemics: obesity, autism, diabetes, and infertility. I advise everybody to consider the paleo diet and to check out sites like MarksDailyApple and the free documentary Fat Head.
However, I don’t agree that GMO’s by themselves are, as of yet, any particularly huge factor. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the ratio of saturated fat to sugar/grains has basically been reversed in the past two generations, and I guess that that’s about 75% of all these health maladies.
And if the GMOs were making everybody impotent and sterile….then blacks and Mexicans would also be infertile, and as anybody who works in a maternity ward will tell you, that’s sure as hell not the case!
David wrote:
I would imagine that most 20 year-old whites are people for whom “sex” means fapping to internet porn, but for whom actually inserting a cock into a pussy is “repulsive” (which is how an increasing number of young women are describing the act of fucking).
*snip*
All too true, unfortunately. I’m in my early 20s and out of the guys and girls I know who are also in this age group, I would honestly say that about 80%, being generous there, are all still virgins. It isn’t, however, purely an issue of them being virgins at that age, it’s also the issue that the vast majority of them, bar one or two very sexually active girls who make no bones about their love of sex, give off strong impressions that they simply have no interest in sex or relationships at all, in the years I have known them very few, hardly any really, have ever been in a relationship, most don’t even associate with members of the opposite sex much, which in men isn’t as surprising but with women to still be clinging solely to female friendships at that age is very unusual I would have though.
I never really started to think about until recently, I suppose because I thought there was still time for things to change, but the 90s generation really is a sexless generation, there were, for all intents and purposes, zero relationships between students during my school life, and in sixth form there were some, but they were sexless, I knew a couple who had been dating for three years and hadn’t had sex with each other…how that sort of relationship even works is beyond me.
I don’t know, I can’t say I like this generation of apathetic to sex populations, but it is what it is and I can’t see it changing any time soon.
That’s very heartbreaking to read, even though it’s just echoing what is clearly true. Ha ha: In the old days, people used to try and curtail sexual activity in the younger people. Things are so screwed up in the West that now older generations will be having sit-downs with the dwindling number of young people and try and encourage them to get busy in the back seat of the car!
Well, I’ll give you the same advice I give to all guys when this topic comes up:
(1) Get healthy. Like with athletes, this should be centered around hormonal health, via copious amounts of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol. Here’s a fun little article about testosterone (and other hormone)-boosting lifestyle: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/01/18/how-to-increase-testosterone-naturally/
(2) Stay away from porn, as much as you can possibly discipline yourself to do. Here’s a great “TED Talk” on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU
Thanks a lot for the links! They’re very informative, I agree very much with the topic Gary Wilson gave in the second link as well.
No problem, Raedwald. I hope they continue to be helpful. Please take a minute to share the links to a couple of friends, and hopefully the info helps them, too.
We need to bring back Arno Breker’s erotic sculptures!
Stupendous. This is brilliant & you, Sir, are very brave. Thank you thank you!
“It must never be forgotten that the imposition of measures intended to prevent births within a racial, ethnic, religious or national group constitutes a crime—the formal crime of genocide.”
Quite.
This is why patriarchy and family values is important. Patriarchies always outproduces in quantity and quality children of the race in question(hence why the patriarchal non-whites are outproducing the egalitarian whites). The erosion of that fact and the promotion of careers over family as well as other feminist values ensure the extinction of the white race:
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy
Religion with its promotion of patriarchy also helps promotes reproduction:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2011/eric_kaufmann
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment