by Roger Devlin

Like the Soviet Union of yore, contemporary America is in the grip of an ideology, a system of ideas not derived from any empirical study of the world around us, but which provides an account of the world, establishes an aim to be pursued and rules for pursuing it, and (most importantly) legitimates the power of some men over others.

Another essential element of any ideology, as of any religion, is its demonology—an account of the enemy whom adherents must forever struggle against. Unlike personal enmities which arise through concrete social interaction, ideological enmities are established a priori by the ideology itself.

In the ruling ideology of the Soviet Union, e.g., enemies included the bourgeoisie, revisionists, kulaks, and one especially nondescript class referred to simply as “enemies of the people.” In the ideology which prevails in present day America, the ideological enemies are the abstract groups denounced in Trump’s second Charlottesville remarks: racists, supremacists, haters and bigots, Nazis and the KKK. Ritual denunciation of designated enemies is an essential aspect of ideological rule, and leaders of an ideological regime cannot be considered legitimate without periodically making them. In the Soviet Union, communist politicians learned to spit out denunciations of communism’s demons in their sleep. For similar reasons, I do not share Hunter Wallace’s sense of betrayal at Trump’s second speech.

There is no objective or generally agreed-upon way of determining whether an actual person is a member of an ideologically designated category of enemies. Thus, e.g., if you had the misfortune of being designated an “enemy of the people” in the Soviet Union, you had no way to defend yourself. If you were merely accused of murder, the situation was not so desperate: everyone knows that a murderer is someone who has committed premeditated homicide, so a defense against the charge must try to demonstrate that one did not or could not have committed a particular act of homicide, or only did so without premeditation (manslaughter). But what action defines one as an “enemy of the people?”

Essentially the same situation prevails under American anti-racist ideology. There is no agreed-upon definition of racist, supremacist, bigot or Nazi. One’s membership in such supposed groups is not determined by any actions of one’s own, but arbitrarily imputed by ideological zealots, and thus no defense is possible. How could anyone prove he does not harbor “hate” in the privacy of his own mind?…

Perhaps there really are a few people out there seething with fury at others because of “the color of their skin.” But it hardly matters. The important point is the fundamentally mythical nature of the concept, and the real injustice done to those it makes into scapegoats. White activism might even be defined as the overt public rejection of our assigned status as scapegoats for the failures of the fever-dream of “anti-racism.”

We’ll know we have won when we have a president who understands this—and is free to say so.

Read it all: here

Patriarchy vs. feminism


I have just deleted the PDF “War of the sexes.” The section where I quoted the blogger Turd Flinging Monkey was long-winded. I have extensively reviewed it for inclusion in the 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. This abridged and reviewed version is now available in another PDF for a more comfortable reading (if the visitor wants to print it):

The article shows that feminism will die and patriarchy will be restored in Europe, either by regenerated Whites or by Muslims. Pay special attention to what we say in the last three pages.
Thursday update

An “angel of the library” visited me. Lately I have been reading Tacitus’ Germania very slowly, opening his book written in 98 AD once in a while. Today, in the edition of Ostara Publications, the bookmark I had left on page 8 opened the book here:

Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt, and in the husband’s power. Having cut off the hair of the adulteress and stripped her naked, he expels her from the house in the presence of her kinsfolk, and then flogs her through the whole village.

Although it is feminist rubbish, we saw something like this in the chapter “Mother’s Mercy” of Game of Thrones: the punishment of adulterous Queen Cersei.

The loss of chastity meets with no indulgence; neither beauty, youth, nor wealth will procure the culprit another husband. No one in Germany turns vices into mirth, nor is the practice of corrupting and of yielding to corruption, called the custom of the Age…

They receive one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further-reaching desires, that they may love not so much the husband as the married state.

Here I lean toward Roger Devlin more than Turd Flinging Monkey: marriage was instituted to control hypergamous women, not brutish alpha males. It seems to me that, since we men are morally superior to women, our male ancestors had no choice but invent marriage as a rock-solid institution. It is the only way to avoid that female hypergamy, a residual instinct so natural in prehistoric times, destroys an incipient culture or civilization.

The wisdom of the ancient Germanics in Tacitus’ passage (thanks angel!) can be fully understood if we take a look not only to the PDF linked above but also to Devlin’s seminal paper.

On women’s lib

by F. Roger Devlin

SexualUtopiaCoverWhen I began writing and talking about sex in racialist circles a few years ago, even some very intelligent people did not understand the relevance of what I was saying to their concerns. The relevance is, of course, that races reproduce sexually. Feminism in all its aspects is as much an attack on our race as Boasian egalitarian dogma, and the same struggle must be waged against both.

Like the Soviet Union of old, the contemporary West is a regime built upon lies, and cannot survive once those lies are brought into open and general contempt.

Published in: on December 30, 2015 at 11:41 pm  Comments (4)  

Why I Write

by Roger Devlin

I came late to the issues characteristically discussed in The Occidental Quarterly.

I had no interest in politics during my early adult years, a circumstance for which I am now grateful. Like most Americans, I assumed that “politics” meant electoral contests between hardly-distinguishable parties.

In early adulthood I encountered The Gulag Archipelago and gained a proper appreciation of just how high the stakes of politics could be. Initially, I gravitated toward that combination of anti-Communism and status quo Social Democracy known as neo-conservatism. In the academic bubble I then inhabited, such a stance was viewed as radical.

As a college instructor, I was baffled to receive student essays vehemently maintaining the “equality” of black and white, or singing the heroism of Rosa Parks. My classes were in philosophy, and I never mentioned race at all. Clearly, this was the stuff students had been taught to write for their professors before they got to me.

The stridency of their language suggested they were defending an idea under heavy attack. But where was the attack? All I had ever heard anyone say about races is that they were “equal.” If this is all the students wanted to say, what were they getting so worked up about? They wrote as if they were trying to scratch an itch.

I wished to devote my life to learning and scholarship, with no thought of practical application beyond eventually sharing my knowledge with the generation that came after me. Of course, I quickly learned that few of my colleagues shared this elevated, quasi-monastic notion of the scholar’s calling. Some turned out to hold beliefs weirdly similar to the jailors described by Solzhenitsyn; many more did not, but were untroubled by—or afraid of—those who did.

Accordingly, my first practical cause belonged to the realm of academic politics: defending the life of the mind from ideological corruption. I was also fascinated by the sheer power which ideology exercised over many men’s minds, and by how a band of resentful mediocrities armed with little else had infiltrated and virtually subjugated an institution made up of highly intelligent people.

The ideologues talked a great deal about race, of course; but this did not lead me to take any interest in the subject myself. I vaguely hoped that once the imposters had been purged from the academy we could forget about race and get back to learning and teaching.

I devoted several years to investigating the first principles of modern “progressive” thought, publishing a little philosophical primer on the subject (Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought). But this still did not lead me to the issue of racial differences, which are an empirical rather than philosophical matter. The entire drama of ideological politics can be played out within a homogeneous society, as students of the French Revolution know.

Nevertheless, I have come to the point where I prefer to publish even purely sociological analysis (e.g., “From Salon to Guillotine,” Summer 2008) in an explicitly racial-realist venue such as The Occidental Quarterly.

Here is why. Those traditional conservatives who continue to admonish us against the dangers of “biological determinism” are increasingly condemning themselves to irrelevance. The plea that “race isn’t everything” is valid per se, but not especially germane to the situation in which we find ourselves. For we are not the aggressors in the battle now being fought. And in any battle, it is the aggressors’ prerogative to choose the point of attack: if they come at you by land, you do not have the option of fighting them at sea.

Race is everything to our enemies, and it is the angle from which they have chosen to attack our entire civilization. It is also where they have achieved their greatest victories: you can see this from the way “conservative” groups feel they must parrot the language of the egalitarians just to get a hearing (see: here). Such well-meaning but naive friends of our civilization are in effect consenting to occupy the status of a “kept” opposition.

The more we try to avoid confronting race directly, the more our enemies will press their advantage at precisely this point. Tactically, they are correct to do so. And they will continue until we abandon our defensive posture and turn to attack them on their own chosen ground.

The Occidental Quarterly is blessed with contributors who have made racial differences and ethnic conflict their lives’ study, and I cannot match them in their own fields. But I prefer to throw in my lot with them because they are unambiguously not part of any “kept” opposition. Being a pariah at least keeps one honest.

A turning point for me was reading Glayde Whitney’s “The Biological Reality of Race” in American Renaissance (October 1999). Like everyone else in America, I had been subjected to years of race-talk, but the aim had always been to lead me to “feel” in a predetermined way. Even my students’ papers had been apprentice work in this genre. Whitney, by contrast, was simply setting forth information. Reading him was like being addressed as an adult after years of being talked down to. This by itself was enough to get me to sit up and take notice of what he was saying.

Moreover, he contradicted everything I had ever been told. And he did so while showing that race could be as interesting as any other scientific topic. I had never seen anyone actually diagram the human family tree, showing which groups were most closely related and which most distantly separated. I was particularly struck by the revelation that the deepest evolutionary cleft within the human race was that between black Africans and everyone else.

But even a complete racial science based upon exhaustive knowledge of the human genome would never make a dent in anti-white ideology. This is because ideologies are not scientific theories: they are systems of ideas mobilized by groups of men in their struggle to acquire or maintain power over other men. They are a misuse—a prostitution—of the faculty of human reason, whose proper end is the discovery of the true. Ideological doctrines are true, in the best of cases, only per accidens; more often they are falsehoods publicly maintained through violence and intimidation.

Not being based upon knowledge, the content of ideologies change with the elites and counter-elites which champion them. Past ideological regimes have been governed by Marxists who spoke of class rather than race. Still earlier regimes (and revolutionaries) invoked religious concepts. And, yes, racial science itself has been prostituted in the service of what was essentially a political ideology.

The masters of the West long ago ceased performing even the minimum function required of any governing elite: seeing to the physical survival of the people it rules. Instead, it maintains its power by setting its clients (“designated victims”) against the rest of us. “Antiracism” is the ideology, but what is really going on underneath is the mobilization of envy, covetousness, and the libido dominandi.

Much of the elite itself is white, of course. But this is really no more paradoxical than a company getting rich by staging a “going out of business sale” that never ends. Except, of course, that the “white anti-racism” game will have to end soon.

The regime’s greatest crime, however, lies not in setting its clients against us; it is what it has done to our own young people. Those indoctrinated students whose essays so perplexed me had been formed into instruments of an alien will: pawns in a struggle inimical to their own interests, and whose real nature they could not grasp. They were no less victims for being willing.

Writing for The Occidental Quarterly is essentially a continuation of the work I had always intended to do, adapted to a hostile political situation I have come to understand better. In the most general terms, this work remains: the pursuit of knowledge, teaching, and the fight against the same ideological enemies I encountered in the academy. For a professor-manqué, writing for an independent journal is the equivalent of what home-schooling is for a parent: a quiet revolt against institutions which have lost all claim to allegiance.

TOQ Online, October 1, 2009

On sexual lib

socalled liberation

Never forget the sexual side of the destruction of the white race. Below, “Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide,” a Roger Devlin address given at The Occidental Quarterly Editor’s Dinner on October 30, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia.

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.


to “For your bookshelf”


In the above-linked post I said two years ago:

Roger Devlin’s is not included here only because it has not appeared in book form yet. I hope Devlin will get together his already published articles in The Occidental Quarterly and elsewhere to make them available in a single book cover.

Now a collection of Devlin’s articles is available from Counter Currents.

Published in: on June 8, 2015 at 5:36 pm  Comments (1)  

A Matrix for the white peoples

Isn’t it incredible that what George Lincoln Rockwell said at UCLA in 1967, a couple of months before he was assassinated, about the actual perps of the largest genocide in Western history is still censored in the media? Alexander Solzhenitsyn was the author of a two-volume work, Two Hundred Years Together, about the history of Russian-Jewish relations between the years 1795 and 1995. It is the only non-fiction book by Solzhenitsyn besides The Gulag Archipelago.

Alas, the Jews and the Zionist gentiles in the Anglo-Saxon world are so powerful that they have managed to censor the Russian-English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together for more than a dozen years! The publishing houses in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia, including the universities presses, are such cowards that Solzhenitsyn’s last major work, published since 2001-2002 in Russian, has not been translated to English!

What can we think about the powers that be regarding the fact that the most significant historical datum of the 20th century is still hidden from the masses?:

Solyenitsin“You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the ‘Russian Revolution.’ It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.”

—Solzhenitsyn, quoted by David Duke

When I was younger Soviet dissidents had to smuggle copies of Solzhenitsyn’s work into the Soviet Union. Today totalitarianism has been inverted and it is us who are smuggling unauthorized translations of Solzhenitsyn’s last major work from Russia into the West, thanks to the internet.

There’s no question about it: whites have been plugged in a matrix for seventy years now.

Postscript of February 18:

I have now printed and read Roger Devlin’s long review of Two Hundred Years Together, originally published in The Occidental Quarterly (here and here). It looks like, although I do not claim that Solzhenitsyn’s quote in above post is fraudulent, it certainly goes against the grain of what, according to Devlin, Solzhenitsyn opined about Russian Jews in his last book.

Similarly, after watching ISIS’ recent mischief in Libya I retract what I said last month, that “whites have a better chance to survive under Sharia than under the current Judeo-liberal system.” While it is true that the current system is a fast track for Aryan extinction, under Islam extinction would only be postponed a little longer.

One of the advantages of our continuing education through the Internet is that our worldview may be slightly modified as new bits of data are encountered and properly digested. This said, the basics of my catechism in the form of a compilation of many authors in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, which 2015 edition has just been released, are still intact.

Affordable gift for your friends


A catechism of racial thought, compiled from many of the world’s foremost thinkers on race and western politics—and some unknown internet commentators—edited and commentated upon by C. T.

Acknowledgment is due to the following authors and commenters: Arthur Kemp, Hajo Liaucius, Kevin MacDonald, Michael O’Meara, Jason Richwine, Manu Rodríguez, Roger Devlin, Evropa Soberana (blogsite), Vance Stubbs, Tomislav Sunic, Jared Taylor, Joseph Walsh and the late William Pierce (the list is not complete).

Just released and available from Amazon Books.

Postscript of February 16, 2015:

The above is a cheap softcover edition. There’s now a more expensive updated edition in hardcover.

Twelve must reads

Vinson-bookHow could I have forgotten Irmin Vinson’s book in my lists (see e.g., here)? Perhaps because I only have read Vinson online, including all the articles eventually gathered by Counter-Currents Publishing for a book.

Now there are twelve books of my must-reads, including also Roger Devlin’s already published articles in scholarly journals that merit a single cover.

Published in: on April 1, 2013 at 11:11 pm  Leave a Comment  

For your bookshelf

Not long ago my entry “Ten must reads” elicited some attention. Two things have happened since then: William Pierce’s last book has finally been published and therefore can be treasured in our bookshelves; and I have read a book that was not in my original list, authored by Tom Sunic (below, flanked with white margins), that I have been discussing in the previous entries.








Roger Devlin’s is not included here only because it has not appeared in book form yet. I hope Devlin will get together his already published articles in The Occidental Quarterly and elsewhere to make them available in a single book cover.

Enjoy the reading!