Print this post Print this post

Back to Africa:
Sexual Atavism in the Modern West

SexualUtopiaCover3,593 words

Swedish translation here

Editor’s Note:

The following chapter from F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power is the full version of an article that appeared in much-shortened form in American Renaissance, vol. 19, no. 6, June 2008.

About the middle of the “roaring twenties,” as America was enjoying a spell of peace and prosperity, the eminent literary critic Irving Babbitt issued a dire warning:

Sexual unrestraint [he wrote] is wreaking fearful havoc to society. . . . The resultant diseases are . . . a menace to the future of the white race. . . . There is an undoubted connection between a certain type of . . . self-indulgent individualism and an unduly declining birthrate. The French and also the Americans of native descent are, if we are to trust statistics, in danger of withering from the earth. Where the population is increasing, it is, we are told, at the expense of quality. The stocks to which the past has looked for its leaders are dying out and the inferior or even degenerate breeds are multiplying.

When Babbitt came to consider possible ways of remedying the situation, however, he acknowledged: “the evidence is slight that the individual can be induced to control himself on such general grounds as the good of the country or . . . the good of the white race menaced by ‘the rising tide of color.’” He goes on to argue that traditional ideals of self-restraint would be of greater practical effect than explicitly eugenic considerations. One might add that external constraints are sometimes more effective than either, and that it was in fact the discipline imposed by the Great Depression and Second World War which actually put an end to the profligacy (sexual and otherwise) of the twenties. These hardships were followed, not accidentally, by the baby boom. But the baby boom turned out to be a kind of one generation wonder. Today the sexual situation in the Western world has reverted to a condition worse than Babbitt could have imagined possible, and his warnings are timelier than when he gave them.

And I want particularly to reiterate his point that racial purposes are not necessarily best achieved by adducing explicitly racial considerations. While it is important to publicize accurate information about race, we cannot continue our civilization simply by winning debates about IQ scores. Ideas may have consequences, but they do not have children. And normal people do not make basic life decisions involving marriage and children on the basis of scientific findings or considerations of racial politics.

I would even caution against too heavy an emphasis on the issue of intermarriage. Whites actually seem to marry outside their race less often than others: Sam Francis called the numbers “negligible.” On the other hand, vast numbers of our women are either not reproducing or doing so at below replacement level. Yet some racialists seem to be more concerned over one interracial union than fifty childless white couples. The reason, I believe, is that they can see the occasional white mother pushing her mulatto baby around in a stroller, but they cannot see the white children other women are not having. The greatest threats to a nation, however, need not be those which strike the eye.

I want to share with you some thoughts on the dire threat posed to our race and civilization by a movement to which some racialists may not attend because it seems to be nonracial in character: sexual liberation. In my essay “Sexual Utopia in Power,” I explained why a polygamous mating pattern inevitably emerges with the breakdown of marriage. This is not because evil men are able to exploit helpless, innocent lasses; it is simply the natural result of women’s own socially unconstrained choices. They themselves compete to mate with the most attractive males, in a manner we can directly observe among the lower mammals. Now, even among humans, polygamous societies are nothing new, and a great deal is known about how they operate. It so happens that the most polygamous part of the world is a region of special interest to Americans—it is none other than West Africa, the ancestral homeland of our own black population. A look at that society might shed some useful light on what is happening in the West today.

An unusual feature of the region is that women produce nearly all the food: one anthropologist calls it “the region of female farming par excellence.” This is not because Africans have an enlightened and progressive belief in careers for women, but because West African agriculture is of an unusually primitive type. Cultivation tends to be extensive rather than intensive, and the principle tools are simple hoes which women can wield as easily as men. The more challenging climate of Europe, by contrast, calls for intensive plough cultivation, entailing female dependence on male provisioning.

Since the women of West Africa can provide for themselves, and often for their husbands as well, men do not need to worry about the cost of taking multiple wives. A wife may even, contrary to our expectations, take the initiative to encourage her husband to marry another woman, since this usually relieves her of some of her chores. As for the men—well, they end up enjoying considerable leisure, which they mostly devote to politicking, fighting, drinking and the pursuit of what ethnographers delicately refer to as “polycoity.” A Dutch traveler left us an amusing description of the typical polygamist on the 17th-century Gold Coast, who “idly spends his time in impertinent tattling and drinking of palm-wine, which the poor wives are frequently obliged to raise money to pay for.” Husbands are not even duty-bound to share any personal earnings with their wives; community of property is not assumed to be part of the definition of marriage.

Moreover, polygamous husbands are positively discouraged from spending too much time or becoming too emotionally intimate with any particular wife, as this would tend to provoke jealousy in the rest and thus interfere with the smooth functioning of the household. Most wives, therefore, are resigned to marital neglect. On the other hand, in a polygamous society there will always be plenty of footloose bachelors roaming about who are more than willing to keep lonely harem-wives company. Few of these African women are Roman Lucretias prepared to plunge daggers into their breasts to preserve their sacred honor. In fact, sometimes the whole distinction between licit and illicit relations becomes blurred, and men and women lose any notion of a permanent marriage bond. They simply have “relationships.” (Is this starting to sound familiar?) The upshot of the whole mess is that paternity in West Africa tends to be extremely uncertain. As a result, men do not put much effort into fatherhood; why should they when they do not even know whether the children are theirs?

The weakness of fatherhood in Africa makes for an emphasis on kinship through the maternal line; anthropologists describe African family life as “matrifocal.” But this does not mean that mothers make up for the neglect of children by fathers. They are often content to delegate care of their offspring to more distant relatives or friends to whom they pay a modest fee. This practice, known as “fosterage,” is in no way seen as a dereliction of a mother’s duties in black Africa. Why do mothers do it? One motive is that the absence of children from the house may make them more attractive to new male suitors. Fosterage can begin when the child is quite young, since early weaning allows the mother’s ovulation cycle to recommence quickly. Relieved of her offspring, she is able to devote her full attention to having more babies. In other words, the effort she saves on childrearing goes into childbearing. The obvious result is a vast number of lackadaisically reared children. (It is perhaps worth mentioning that, in another parallel with the “progressive” West, Africans do not bother to raise boys and girls very differently, though such “nonsexist” upbringing has not led to any egalitarian paradise there either.)

Western humanitarians appalled by what seems to them the scandalous poverty of Africa and anxious to relieve it are sometimes surprised to learn that Africans themselves do not share their concerns. They seem breezily confident the children will get along somehow. This may be a racial trait, but it is undoubtedly reinforced by the practice of fosterage: parents who delegate care of their children to others do not feel the same need to husband their own resources carefully. Once the children are out of the house, they may have little idea what kind of care they are actually getting. Clearly, this is an invitation to wishful thinking.

Finally, as the number of children in fosterage grows, the small fees paid out to the foster parents begin to add up. The biological parents’ money is bled off, and capital is not accumulated. Even relatively prosperous families usually have no “nest egg” in our sense. This is an important factor contributing to the poverty of the region.

In summary, we may describe this whole family system as based on short-term responses to circumstances rather than deliberate, long-term planning.

Now, the simpler and more spontaneous culture of West Africa may more or less be able to muddle along in this fashion, but the civilization which produced Shakespeare, Mozart, and Newton cannot. The achievements which form our cultural heritage presuppose stable social arrangements. Predictable familial and civic relations, long apprenticeships, capital accumulation, and the rational allocation of resources are what allow men of talent to invest time and effort in endeavors which do not necessarily have any quick or obvious economic payoff. This is what makes the arts and sciences possible.

It is probably true that Europeans are naturally better adapted (through evolutionary pressures) to monogamy and deferral of gratification, but it would behoove us not to presume too much upon this. One of the reasons for studying Africa is that it is like a window onto our own remotest past. During declining phases of civilization, primitive cultural forms tend to reappear. Whites are not immune to what might be called “re-Africanization,” and there is plentiful evidence that some such thing is now taking place. Western man is in certain ways returning spiritually to the Dark Continent from which he laboriously emerged long ago.

In the first place, let us consider the contemporary West’s obvious and abnormal preoccupation with sex. Anthropologists speak of reproductive effort as a combination of mating effort and parenting effort. There is a natural tradeoff between these two components. The less time people spend looking for mates, the more they have left to devote to their children. The traditional European practice is to encourage young people to pair off early and emphasize fidelity in order to reduce sexual competition and allow adults to concentrate on the serious business of raising families.

But this is not a universal human pattern. Africans make the tradeoff between mating effort and parenting effort differently, with the result that sex assumes greater importance in their lives over a longer period of time. White writers of earlier days frequently noted the prominence of sex in the black man’s thoughts; when recalled now, such observations are, of course, cited with horror as proof of our ancestor’s terrible “racism.” In fact they were merely reporting what they observed, and what is still observed by professional anthropologists in West Africa today.

As monogamy continues to decay in the West, our mating system increasingly comes to resemble the more competitive African model, and with similar results. We see young women become completely consumed by the effort to maximizing their sexual allure in order to snag high status men, and men competing for status in order to obtain access to these women. All this comes at the expense of childrearing and family life.

Secondly, the feminist program of cajoling or forcing women into the workplace means that women once again become self-supporting, as are the female farmers of West Africa. The Dilbert world of air-conditioned work cubicles may not outwardly resemble the miserable farming plots of Africa. But both stand in marked contrast to the male-breadwinner model traditional in the West, in which devoted childrearing was a woman’s first and most important duty. Indeed, the modern workplace, optimized for risk-free, repetitious, sedentary work is probably the best conceivable environment for eliminating women’s economic dependence upon men. By the same token, it discourages the moderately large families of well-brought-up children which are the indispensable and timeless precondition of Western Civilization. If sufficiently many women fail or refuse to marry and become mothers of such families, our way of life cannot be sustained.

The most important effect of economic autonomy upon women is that it reduces the benefits of monogamous marriage to them. This affords them the freedom to mate as they please, which naturally results in catty competition over the most attractive men. That is what the college “hook-up” scene is really about (and not callous men “preying upon” wide-eyed virgins). The women use attractive men partly for pleasure, but often just as much to demonstrate their sexual powers to other women; they use affluent men for their resources (either not marrying or marrying and then divorcing them), and they rely on the police to get rid of “stalkers and harassers,” i.e., men who find them attractive but for whom they have no use.

A second economic factor influencing female sexual behavior today is easy consumer credit. The credit card functions similarly to the expectation of providing for children through fosterage in Africa. It conceals from young, present-centered women the need for frugality. The contemporary American economy is fueled to a great extent by massive consumer debt. How much of this reckless spending do you suppose is done by married men with children to support? Feminists complain that men continue to earn more than women, but they say little about which sex spends more. And, of course, the more time and effort women devote to careers and personal consumption, the less they have for such children as they do manage to bear. The phenomenon of “latchkey children,” raised by television sets and unsupervised peer groups, was an entirely predictable result of the feminist project.

So, in summary: the contemporary West resembles traditional West African society in (1) female economic self-support; (2) polygamous and unstable mating patterns; (3) absence of long- range planning or deferred gratification; (4) a tendency to overestimate available resources; and (5) low investment parenting.

But all analogies break down at some point, and when this one does it is to the credit of Africa rather than us. The African system does not, as I noted, produce a particularly advanced civilization, but it does at least ensure procreation, which is more than can be said for our present way of life. Although Africans do not usually sacrifice all that much for their offspring, they are extremely fond of children. They have a proverb: “If you have a child, you have a life.” One of the justifications they offer for practicing fosterage is that without it the poor foster-parent would be deprived of the pleasure of juvenile company. Africans not only want to have children, they want to share them with all their friends and neighbors. Accordingly, efforts by Western busybodies to interest them in birth control have not met with much success: fourteen of the sixteen most fertile countries in the world are in black Africa.

Sociobiologists speak of high investment vs. high fertility reproductive strategies, but it is clear the contemporary West does not fall into either category. We are practicing both low fertility and low parental investment. It is uncanny how many of the “progressive” causes being pushed among us involve thwarting procreation: female careerism, unrestricted abortion, so-called “safe sex,” and special political protections for homosexuality. A society which makes these its priorities can only have a death wish.

Much has already been written in the conservative press in condemnation of the sexual revolution, of course, but in my view most of the criticism is worse than worthless because it is simply an expression of male rescue fantasies rather than an informed and rational assessment of the situation. Thus, there are calls for greater protection for women whose chief problem is that they are overprotected to begin with. Lonely bachelors who could easily find a wife in a monogamous society are portrayed as dangerous predators upon female innocence when the only reason they remain bachelors is that women are furiously competing to join the harems of a few unusually handsome and successful men. Hard working men are berated for failing to provide for women who enjoy preferences in hiring and advancement at their expense and have better economic prospects than they do.

The misguided gallantry of the typical male pundit may to some extent simply be a component of male heterosexuality: since men naturally desire women, they have a vested interest in believing women worth having. Conservatives who cannot heap enough ridicule upon Rousseau’s doctrine of the natural goodness of man are often among the most naïve in asserting the natural goodness of woman. This is a kind of ideology, with an ideology’s characteristic capacity to ignore or explain away conflicting evidence. Many men continue to insist, in defiance of all the evidence of women’s actual behavior, that they are pining away for morally upright men to love, honor, and obey, and that the poor dears cannot find happiness only because other men (never the writer himself, of course) are selfish, irresponsible cads.

To some extent, I sympathize with these commentators. It is indeed baffling that any woman could prefer the barren existence of the career woman to having a home with a devoted husband and offspring to care for. I once heard a man observe that if young women had any sense they would be in the streets demanding the return of the meal ticket that marriage once gave them. But actions speak louder than words, and obviously this is not happening. The short term incentives of independent incomes, material self-indulgence, and transitory “relationships” with attractive men are visibly winning out over the long term benefits to women of marriage and family. It is past time for men to wake up to this reality.

The most important form of “racial activism” is childrearing. This goal cannot be achieved by the conservative’s usual ham-fisted methods of calling for more punishment of men, making endless excuses for women, and putting everyone to sleep with moral exhortation about the sacredness of marriage. Instead, we must consider the actual incentives now operating upon men and women, as economists long ago learned to do, and focus our efforts on altering them in ways conducive to family formation.

Let me illustrate what I mean with reference to the issue of racial intermarriage, which as I said some racialists counterproductively harp upon. Today there are more than a few American men going to enormous trouble and expense to seek wives in exotic places like the Philippine Islands and South America. For the most part, they are doing so not because they lust after exotic flesh but because the women in these societies treat men better, are more feminine, and give family life priority over any work they may do outside the home. It is futile to say to such men, “You have a racial duty to beg a spoiled Western girl to accept a diamond ring from you and put up with her nagging until such time as she gets bored, walks off with the children, and sues you for child support.” White men do not have any such duty, and outside the ranks of a few hardcore racialists, such exhortations will be entirely without effect. If you wish to influence the average man of the West, who does not read American Renaissance or The Occidental Quarterly or perhaps even think much about race directly, to marry a white woman and start a family as his ancestors did, the only way to do it is to make white women marriageable once again. This means undoing at least forty years of feminism.

Or again, let us consider those white women who take up with black men. This too is happening for a reason. There has been plenty written about the injustices of so-called affirmative action, even by mainstream conservatives, but I have never any-where seen a direct discussion of its sexual consequences. Given the hypergamous nature of the female sex instinct, however, there certainly are such consequences. Our current laws mean that white men are in effect being forced to labor for the benefit of blacks. Furthermore, they must carefully watch their words to avoid “offending” blacks, but not vice-versa. Women perceive all this: they have a keen sense of which males are dominant. Once again, direct attempts to change behavior through scolding and exhortation are simply not likely to be effective. It is the incentives to which these women are responding which must be changed.

Far from women being naturally monogamous, as our fathers were often encouraged to believe, the family probably first came into being when men forcibly imposed monogamy upon women in order to insure their own paternity and minimize sexual competition. But, once established, the benefits of the system were so great that women came to appreciate it as well. If our civilization is to survive, we must join together again to restore the monogamous heterosexual family as the normal unit of society.


I would like to thank Steve Sailer, Henry Harpending, and Peter Frost for directing me to some relevant anthropological literature. The views expressed are my own.



  1. Bernie
    Posted June 26, 2015 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Am reading this book right now. Highly recommended.

  2. Lars von Lars
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    There are far greater threats facing our race than the low birthrates of stupid middle-class liberals. Nuclear war, artificial intelligence, killer robots, nanotechnology, pandemics–that’s what keeps me up at night. The fact that the idiotic self-hating whites who watch Jon Stewart and read The Huffington Post aren’t having any babies does not. In fact, it kind of comforts me.

  3. Richard McCulloch
    Posted July 1, 2015 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Reliable figures on the rate of racial intermixture have never been available. The reasons for this are an important topic for discussion in themselves. The primary consideration here is the proportion of children born to white women (“white” here defined as European in ancestry and racial type and identity) who have non-white fathers and as a result are non-white, i.e., not themselves of European racial type and identity. Obviously, this includes children born both in and out of wedlock. We do, however, have figures on the rate of intermarriage that seem sufficiently credible, and this should correlate closely enough with the rate of intermixture to give us a reasonable base line for discussion.
    According to a study by the Pew Research Center titled “The Rise of Intermarriage” by Wendy Wang, published February 16, 2012, “about 15% of all new marriages in the United States in 2010 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity [the definition of ethnicity in this article would involve what is commonly considered to be different races] from one another, more than double the share in 1980 (6.7%). Among all newlyweds in 2010, 9% of whites, 17% of Hispanics and 28% of Asians married out.” In 2010 the proportion of all mixed marriages, regardless of when the marriage occurred, was 8.4%. In 1980 it was 3.2%. In terms of gender black males and Asian females married out at far higher rates than black females or Asian males, whereas for whites and Hispanics the rate does not vary by gender. The highest rates of newlywed intermixture were in the West and the lowest rates in the Midwest, and this regional variation is another valid subject for discussion.
    In an earlier study Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculated that 7% of all American marriages in 2005 were interracial compared to less than 2% in 1970. He added his own spin by commenting “when you have the ‘other’ in your own family, it’s hard to think of them as ‘other’ anymore.”
    Combining the two studies we find that the total of mixed marriages increased from less than 2% in 1970, to 3.2% in 1980, to 7% in 2005, and to 8.4% in 2010, when about 15% of all new marriages, and 9% of new marriages involving a white spouse, were interracial. This trend shows the rate of white intermarriage since 1970 increasing about fourfold over 40 years, or approximately doubling every 20 years.
    We can assume the great majority of new marriages involving a white spouse were of couples of reproductive age. Certainly the great majority of children are born to women under the age of 35, most during the first few years of marriage, and almost all children are born to women under the age of 45. But a significant proportion of new marriages involve couples who are past reproductive age. Assuming that new marriages involving couples over the age of 45 were much less likely to be interracial, reflecting the patterns of their generation, it follows that somewhat more than 9% of new marriages involving a white woman under the age of 35 were interracial. I will conservatively estimate that figure to be 10-11%.
    I am not aware of any study comparing the birthrates of white women in mixed marriages with those in white marriages. My own observations indicate that it is somewhat higher, causing me to suspect that many of the white women were making a statement of some kind by having more children. I certainly have no reason to think the birthrate would be lower. But for the purposes of this discussion, without convincing evidence to the contrary, I will assume it is about the same.
    The above figures would indicate that about 10% of children born to married white women in 2010 had a non-white father, and it can be assumed that almost all of these mixed-race children are racially non-white, with a non-white racial identity, as a result.
    For a complete picture of the proportion of mixed-race children born to white women we also need to consider births out of wedlock. As of 2012 the rate of illegitimacy among whites was 29.1%. Historically, the rate of racial intermixture has been much higher among illegitimate births than legitimate births, while the rate of illegitimacy among whites was much lower. I assume that the differential is much lower now than it was then, but that it still exists, and given a 29.1% white illegitimacy rate, if 13.5% of the illegitimate births to white mothers were mixed-race and 10% of the legitimate births were mixed-race, it would give us a combined figure of about 11% mixed-race births to white women in 2010.
    In 2012 the birthrate for white women in the U.S. was 1.76, about 16% below the minimum population replacement rate of 2.1. Assuming, per the above, that 11% of these births are non-white, we get an actual white racial birthrate of about 1.57, or about 25% below the replacement rate. Obviously, the effects of the current, and still growing, intermixture rate, cannot be regarded as negligible when compared to the overall low white birthrate. If the rate of increase in intermixture that we’ve seen over the last 45 years continues, approximately doubling every 20 years, it will soon be a larger factor than the low overall white birthrate itself, even in strictly mathematical terms.
    Unfortunately, intermixture has adverse effects that go far beyond the mathematical. Part of this is alluded to in the comment by Rosenfeld quoted above, that “when you have the ‘other’ in your own family, it’s hard to think of them as ‘other’ anymore.” As whites increasingly have mixed-race grandchildren, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, half-brothers and half-sisters, nieces and nephews that are not racially white, growing numbers will be caught in a conflict of racial interests, compromising their natural racial loyalties and finding it harder to identify with their race and support its vital interests.
    Also to be considered are Frank Salter’s calculations on genetic interests, in which the adverse genetic cost of having a mixed-race child is greater than having no children at all. Like many scientifically valid arguments this was already common sense to the racially observant. The mixed-race children are added to the non-white proportion of the population, further increasing its growth and worsening the situation for whites. So a better case could be made that intermixture is already a bigger part of the demographic replacement problem than the low birthrate itself. To take the argument further, in a monoracial society demographic replacement wouldn’t be an issue, and the continued existence of the race wouldn’t be threatened. Even if there were a below replacement birthrate there would be many generations to correct it before it threatened the continued existence of the race. But in a multiracial society even a healthy birthrate would not save us from demographic replacement, as we would not win a birthrate race with the non-white races, and this combined with intermixture would ultimately bring about our replacement.

    • Verlis
      Posted July 1, 2015 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

      I am not aware of any study comparing the birthrates of white women in mixed marriages with those in white marriages. My own observations indicate that it is somewhat higher, causing me to suspect that many of the white women were making a statement of some kind by having more children.

      CDC data appear to confirm your observation. Looking at birth order data, in 2013 a minimum of 10.2% and and a maximum of 20.5% of white mothers giving birth to their first child bred with non-whites. The lower and upper bounds for white mothers giving birth to their fourth child were 11.6% and 20.8%. For white mothers giving birth to their seventh child the numbers were 13.1% and 25.2%. As the birth order increases the rate of intermixture increases. It is thus reasonable to infer that white women who mix have more children.

      However, the upper bounds for white mothers giving birth to second and to third children are lower than the upper bound for first children (19%), while the lower bound remains much the same, about 10.5%. Because the proportion of total births that are second and third births is so much higher than the proportion that are fourth+ births, and because the total fertility rate of white women is so low, this may may mean that white mothers who give birth to white children have a higher total fertility rate than mother who mix. To determine whether this is indeed the case is a more complex calculation (not that difficult, just time-consuming).

  4. Verlis
    Posted July 1, 2015 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    Reliable figures on the rate of racial intermixture have never been available.

    Actually, the Centers for Disease Control “Vital Statistics” database has data on interracial births going back to 1990. I don’t know how reliable the data is, but if it’s based on the reports from attending medical staff rather than estimates then I think there is good reason to consider it basically reliable.

    The CDC data for 2013 is compatible with your estimate of 11% for 2012. Data categories for fathers of births to white non-hispanic women are broken into all major racial groups as well as a significant “not stated” category. If all of the “not stated” fathers were white then in 2013 89.3% of births to white women had white fathers. This sets the upper bound. If none of the “not stated fathers were white then in 2013 80.3% of births to white women had white fathers. This is the lower bound. On the reasonable assumption that 80% of the “not stated” fathers were white – in line with their proportion of fathers for whom race was stated/known – then 87.5% of births to white mothers had white fathers.

    To put it in terms of intermixture rates, in 2013 a minimum of 10.7% of white mothers gave birth to mixed children; the maximum rate of intermixture was 19.7%; and the adjusted/estimate figure was 12.5%.

    In 1990 the equivalent figures were: 4.8% (min), 13.2% (max), 5.9% (adjusted). This is in line with the estimate that proportion of interracial births to white mothers has been doubling every twenty or so years.

    The CDC database also enables the user to breakdown interracial births by the education of the mother. Doing so confirms the widespread suspicion that mixing is more common among less educated/less intelligent whites. For 2013 the minimum rate of intermixture for white mothers with less than a high school diploma was 15.2%, for mothers with only a high school diploma 13.1%, for mothers with some college but no degree 12.7%, for mothers with a bachelor’s degree 7.6%, and the rate was the same for mothers with a master’s degree, and a tad higher for mothers with a PhD, 7.7% and 8.3% respectively. We can infer from this that, although intermixture threatens white existence, it also has a slight eugenic effect on the remaining white population (pending future breeding trends).

    We can also calculate intermixture rates for married vs unmarried mothers. Here too the data is healthy. Married white mothers intermixed at a minimum rate of 8% vs a minimum rate of 16% for unwed white mothers. The maximum intermixture rate for unwed white mothers is an astonishing 43.6%, but this is an artefact of the dataset: an enormous number of fathers to unwed mothers had their race marked “not stated,” and it seems most unreasonable to believe it possible that none of those fathers was white. In contrast, when it comes to married mothers, even if none of the fathers whose race was marked “not stated” were white, the maximum intermixture rate for married white mothers would only rise to 9.8%.

    The database contains data for individual states and counties as well, and this allows us to predict future trends. Looking at states and counties with the longest histories of multiracialism, in 2013, in California the minimum rate of intermixture for white mothers was 20.6% and maximum rate was 24.7%; Texas 16.8% and 25.8%; Maricopa county 16.9%, 24.9%; Los Angeles county 20.2%, 23.6%; Alameda county, CA 22.9%, 25.5%; Sacramento county, CA 21.9%, 26.3%; Broward county, FL 22.3%, 29.6%; Miam-Dade county, FL 27%, 35%; Fulton county, GA 10.5%, 15.1%; Cook county, IL 11.7%, 15.9%; Orleans parish, LA 10%, 14.3%; St. Louis city, MO 9.7%, 22.3%; Bernalillo county (Albuquerque), NM 26.8%, 35.5%; Queens county, NY 15.1%, 20%; Dallas county, TX 18.9%, 27%; Harris county, TX 19.3%, 26.5%; Richmond city, VA 12.3%, 19.8%. Comparing these numbers to the nation as a whole the trend is obvious and ominous: the more whites are exposed to non-whites the more likely they are to breed with them.

  5. Richard McCulloch
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    I tried not to overstate the seriousness of our situation in my estimates and it seems from the statistics provided by Verlis that I succeeded. I thought the situation was worse than I stated, now I find it is even worse than I thought. I do hope Dr. Devlin and Jared Taylor consider these statistics carefully and incorporate them in their future writings. This is the reality that needs to be shared with all of our race as soon as possible, and first of all with our writers, leaders and activists.
    Living in Broward county I’ve witnessed a huge increase in racial diversity and intermixture over the decades, and for some time believed the local rate of intermixture was well over 10%. But until now the evidence from my observation was only anecdotal. With Broward county having a minimum intermixture rate of 22.3% I see again that the reality actually exceeds my worse fears.

    • Verlis
      Posted July 3, 2015 at 4:53 am | Permalink

      This is the reality that needs to be shared with all of our race as soon as possible, and first of all with our writers, leaders and activists.

      If only they knew what to do with such information. Twenty years since your debate with Sam Francis in the pages of Amren no rhetorical progress has been made on this most important of issues. Indeed, it’s more likely there has been regress – at least that debate took place. In this thread we find only confident dismissals, as though Devlin had run the numbers and knew there was no cause for concern. As you noted so long ago, this only lends a false sense of security to activists, when what is needed is a sense of urgency.

      Whence the reticence to deal forthrightly with intermixture? I believe there are two principle causes. The first, as you have so often stated, has its roots in ignorance of the long-term effects. However I would argue that it’s not mere ignorance, such as not knowing what the time is, which can be remedied by looking at a clock, rather it lies in an inability (and unwillingness) to follow the chain of reasoning explaining how unchecked intermixture ineluctably leads to racial extinction. A man that feels strongly enough about his race that he is participating in such a discussion may feel justifiably confident that he’ll never mix, and I think he reasons from this that there will always be people like him around, so while mixing may diminish white numbers it couldn’t possibly ever lead to extinction. Such people are blithely unaware that no matter how strongly they may feel, there is no way to guarantee that their offspring will feel the same way. With people this obstinate the best that may be hoped for is to impress upon them the fact that mixing diminishes white numbers just as effectively as immigration does and leave the more detailed arguments for more supple intellects.

      The second reason for reticence is that racialists are forever trying to get a word in edgeways. Tired of being shouted down as “racists,” they downplay and sugarcoat their true beliefs in a bid to gain conversational traction. Even if they are aware of the importance of intermixture, to introduce the topic risks exposing the true extent of their racial feelings and political aspirations. “Whoah, you really care about race, don’t you. What a nazi.” It’s difficult to backtrack from that or to explain yourself if you haven’t fully thought the subject through – what to “do about” mixed people, say. (My suggestion for these moments is to say, “Okay, according to you I’m being too extreme. Fair enough. So how would you go about securing white interests – I mean, whites are people too aren’t they?” It’s far from foolproof, but it does force them to stop and think at least for a moment, and even if they say “Well, I don’t really care about white interests,” you shouldn’t assume they necessarily believe it.)

    • Verlis
      Posted July 3, 2015 at 4:59 am | Permalink

      I would like to take this moment to express my gratitude to Richard McCulloch for the work he has done over the years. He was not racially addressing me directly, but I am grateful all the same. More than any other racial writer he is responsible for the approach I take to thinking about race. Had he developed the following that WLP did – whose means and ends could scarcely differ more from McCulloch’s – the American (and wider) racial scene would have looked very different these last thirty years – and been so much the better for it. He may not live to see the racial salvation he has spent a lifetime striving for, but should that day come I can think of no better candidate for commemoration. A race could hardly hope for a finer intellectual champion.

  6. Richard McCulloch
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    As an addendum, allow me to observe how appropriate it is that the data on racial intermixture is collected by the Centers for Disease Control.

  7. Posted July 4, 2015 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    Some very good and interesting points. Though, I still believe that 1960ies style sexual liberation could work, in intelligent high IQ law abiding European Societies, without feminism, quotas, immigration.

    But certainly, puritan monogamy has worked in the USA, and other countries.

  8. rhondda
    Posted July 9, 2015 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    I highly recommend this book. I recommend for women who want to understand what the heck is going on in the world. Here is what you do when you feel triggered: you hold it. You acknowledge to yourself that these particular words have triggered an emotional response in you. Write it down and when you have neutralized the emotion go on reading. Women have got to learn to be rational and think things through. This book is like getting implicit whiteness, explicit. Then you go back to your notes about what has triggered you and you find out why. If you have been brought up in a family that has indirectly or just implied what you out to do and never ever spelled out a rational reason why you should do this, you then become vulnerable to all sorts of temptations and dare I say seductions. This is what the feminist movement is about. They get underneath and subvert. If you see yourself as a warrior, then this is your greatest test. If you are a mother of girls, this book will help you explain to them their important role in society and why it has been undermined.

  9. Ray Symm
    Posted July 11, 2015 at 12:54 am | Permalink

    I disagree that a lack of long term planning is a problem among whites. In fact I think long term planning is part of the problem because it’s what makes whites stave off having children until they’re in their 30s. It’s nauseating. They move so slowly. They date for 7 years, then marry and save up for a house in the suburbs for 5 years and then save for another 5 once they get there, treating dogs or whatever pets as their kids. I know many intelligent, good-looking white couples who are lawyers, business owners, etc who just won’t have kids. They need to stop planning, have the kids, and play catch up. Maybe it’s that the intelligent planning-prone whites need to stop planning and the low-class ones need to do more of it. Each should balance out their proclivities toward rational mean.

  10. Stronza
    Posted July 23, 2015 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    not because they lust after exotic flesh but because the women in these societies treat men better, are more feminine, and give family life priority over any work they may do outside the home.

    I can’t believe the myth is still going around that dark women from far-away cultures are just what the doctor ordered for unhappy white men. It may have been true at one time but they have wised up and are nobody’s fools.

    They will treat (white) men better (than white women do) until they get what they want. Yes, these foreign women may be good, obedient, feminine wives in their own countries – because they have to. But be warned: when you marry an Asian woman, you are marrying her whole family, especially her mother. At some point, greedy white girls may even start to look good to you. Maybe this is a Hobson’s choice situation for the entire white male race.

Post a Comment

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.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace