On Ann Coulter

by Jack Frost

Ann_Coulter_in _2011At 53 years old, Ann Coulter, a Christian fanatic who once said at a public lecture “I don’t care about anything else; Christ died for my sins, and nothing else matters”, and who, in one of her books, once characterized evolution as bogus science, seems an unlikely pinup girl for any advocate of white interests.

She’s a never-married career girl who’s “dated” non-whites, including at least one Jew. No white children ever issued from her shriveled womb, nor, at this point, will they.

White people are abolishing themselves, and Ann Coulter is a case study in how and why.

Published in: on September 22, 2015 at 10:47 am  Comments (1)  

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.


“Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has a single solution: that is, pregnancy.”


Nursing madonna  1

Nursing madonna 2

Nursing madonna 3


Nursing madonna 4

Nursing madonna 5


Nursing madonna 6


Nursing madonna 7

Nursing madonna 9


Nursing madonna 8

Published in: on September 17, 2015 at 6:35 pm  Comments (2)  

Disempowering women

by Jack Frost

redgirl_and_knightGetting rid of abortion and other forms of contraception would automatically lower female influence.

Free access to those things is what causes female influence, as it gives women total control over their own fertility; total control over what type of person makes up the next generation, and whether there will even be a next generation.

For the white race, it’s been a disaster.

Published in: on September 15, 2015 at 6:09 pm  Leave a Comment  

On birth control

19th-century cartoon depicting Jack FrostI was tempted to leave the previous entry on women as sticky for a while. But now Jack Frost has responded to the commenter I quoted there:


I agree there’s a correlation [between feminism and the deranged altruism that invites millions of non-whites to invade our lands]. But it’s only an interesting one because, unless I’ve misread you, you are also suggesting that there’s a straightforward causal relationship between female “influence” and willingness to accept immigrants. But willingness to accept immigrants correlates with a lot of things: relative national wealth, underpopulation, whiteness, and Christianity all come to mind immediately. Conversely, an unwillingness to accept immigrants correlates positively with being already overpopulated, relative national poverty, non-whiteness, and non- (or anti-) Christianity. The causal relationships are debatable.

Also, from a racial point of view, there’s no difference between immigrants who come voluntarily and people who are imported against their will. We should remember that even before feminism, the white men of the New World were importing negro slaves and breeding with them, along with the indigenous non-whites. So it’s clear that a lack of feminism doesn’t necessarily protect race.

One thing that seems unarguable to me is that the cause of female empowerment, and also a low fertility rate, is the availability and widespread use of scientific birth control, including abortion. If we imagine for a moment that these techniques had never been invented, the West would have a much larger white population than it currently has. Since women would always be getting pregnant, they’d have remained dependent upon men, and feminism as we know it today would never have come to pass. If you want to get rid of female “influence”, the quickest way is to eliminate all forms of birth control.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 61



Night of 3rd-4th January 1942

Recruitment of the SS—Himmler’s value—Origins of the SS and the SA—Women love males.
The SS shouldn’t extend its recruiting too much. What matters is to keep a very high level. This body must create upon men of the élite the effect of a lover. People must know that troops like the SS have to pay the butcher’s bill more heavily than anyone else—so as to keep away the young fellows who only want to show off. Troops inspired by a fierce will, troops with an unbeatable turn-out—the sense of superiority personified! As soon as peace has returned, the SS will have to be given its independence again—a complete independence. There has always been a rivalry between troops of the line and guards-men.

That’s why it’s a good thing that the SS should constitute, in relation to the others, an absolutely distinct world. In peace-time it’s an élite police, capable of crushing any adversary.

It was necessary that the SS should make war, otherwise its prestige would have been lowered. I am proud when an army commander can tell me that “his force is based essentially on an armoured division and the SS Reich Division”.

Himmler has an extraordinary quality. I don’t believe that anyone else has had like him the obligation to deploy his troops in such constantly difficult conditions. In 1934, “the old gentleman” was still there. Even afterwards, a thousand difficulties arose.

Being convinced that there are always circumstances in which élite troops are called for, in 1922-23 I created the “Adolf Hitler Shock Troops”. They were made up of men who were ready for revolution and knew that one day or another things would come to hard knocks. When I came out of Landsberg, everything was broken up and scattered in sometimes rival bands. I told myself then that I needed a bodyguard, even a very restricted one, but made up of men who would be enlisted without restriction, even to march against their own brothers.

Only twenty men to a city (on condition that one could count on them absolutely) rather than a suspect mass. himmlerIt was Maurice, Schreck and Heyden who formed in Munich the first group of “tough uns”, and were thus the origin of the SS. But it was with Himmler that the SS became that extraordinary body of men, devoted to an idea, loyal unto death. I see in Himmler our Ignatius de Loyola. With intelligence and obstinacy, against wind and tide, he forged this instrument.

The heads of the SA, for their part, didn’t succeed in giving their troops a soul. At the present time we have had it confirmed that every division of the SS is aware of its responsibility. The SS knows that its job is to set an example, to be and not to seem, and that all eyes are upon it.

The men of the Nordic countries have been softened to this point, that their most beautiful women buckle their baggage when they have an opportunity of getting their hooks on a man in our part of the world. That’s what happened to Goring with his Karin. There’s no rebelling against this observation.

It’s a fact that women love real men. It’s their instinct that tells them. In prehistoric times, the women looked for the protection of heroes. When two men fight for the possession of a woman, the latter waits to let her heart speak until she knows which of the two will be victorious. Tarts adore poachers.


Calumny of Apelles

Above, Botticelli’s 1494 painting Calumny of Apelles which depicts a wrongfully accused man on trial, surrounded by a series of menacing women, each one made to represent a different moral failing. Below, a couple of slightly edited posts from the comments section of The Occidental Observer. They were posted yesterday by a commenter whose native language probably is not English:


I think it is very clear that the more male influence there is in society, the more xenophobic that society is. The more female influence there is in society, the less xenophobic that society is.

Have a look at Sweden—the most feminised country on Earth. It has accepted much more refugees per capita than Germany itself. It is Number 1 in Europe for accepted refugees per capita. And many people are calling Germany crazy. Well, Sweden is even crazier than Germany.

What is causing this pathological altruism? Jews? There are very few of them in Sweden, although they do control some of the media. I think mister [Kevin] McDonald had trouble proving that pathological altruism in Sweden is caused by Jewish influence alone. It is not caused either by the fact that they are northern peoples either, since northern peoples were way more xenophobic a hundred years ago. [MacDonald’s article: here] Then no Muslims were allowed in Northern Europe. No non-European minorities. It was totally populated by white people. And before a hundred years ago America was way more xenophobic as well. All of Europe was more xenophobic.

So what caused the decrease of xenophobia in the US and Europe? Simple: the increase in female influence. Since females are less xenophobic than males, the more female influence there is in society, the less xenophobic that society will be.

This is why countries in Eastern Europe are still hostile towards immigration and multiculturalism and are totally white. In Eastern Europe there is no feminism at all. Women there are more feminine. They are all male-dominated countries; most people in Eastern Europe even don’t know what “sexism” is. White men there are still violent and to be a macho is not considered to be something bad…

I don’t blame or hate women, since that’s their nature. Don’t expect them to fix the problems of the white people. But I do believe that any group that does not control the behaviour of their women—especially their birth-rates, marrying rates, and phenomena such as women politically siding with other groups against their own men—sooner or later ceases to exist.

So the problem is with white men, who don’t keep their women under control, and instead idolise women and think they are angels, or perfect beings. They are not. They are simply humans, who can make mistakes, have weaknesses, and are far from perfect.

So it is white men to blame, for being unable to keep their women in check.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 67



Night of 15th-16th January 1942

A woman of genius
—The Arts must be protected.


It’s claimed that women have no creative genius. But there’s one extraordinary woman, and it irritates me that men don’t do her justice. Angelica Kauffmann was a very great painter. The most illustrious of her own contemporaries admired her.

For Linz Museum I can think of only one motto: “To the German people, that which belongs to it.”

The Munich Pinakothek is one of the most magnificent achievements in the world. It’s the work of one man. What Munich owes to Ludwig I is beyond computing. And what the whole German people owes to him ! The palace of the Uffizi at Florence does honour not to Florence alone, but to all Italy.

Published in: on September 12, 2015 at 12:23 pm  Leave a Comment  

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 75



26th January 1942, evening

Women in politics.

I detest women who dabble in politics. And if their dabbling extends to military matters, it becomes utterly unendurable.

In no local section of the Party has a woman ever had the right to hold even the smallest post. It has therefore often been said that we were a party of misogynists, who regarded a woman only as a machine for making children, or else as a plaything.

That’s far from being the case. I attached a lot of importance to women in the field of the training of youth, and that of good works. In 1924 we had a sudden upsurge of women who were attracted by politics: Frau von Treuenfels and Matilde von Kemnitz. They wanted to join the Reichstag, in order to raise the moral level of that body, so they said. I told them that 90 per cent of the matters dealt with by parliament were masculine affairs, on which they could not have opinions of any value.

Everything that entails combat is exclusively men’s business. There are so many other fields in which one must rely upon women. Organising a house, for example. Few men have Frau Troost’s talent in matters concerning interior decoration. There were four women whom I give star rôles: Frau Troost, Frau Wagner, Frau Scholtz-Klink and Leni Riefenstahl.

Published in: on September 8, 2015 at 12:19 pm  Comments (5)  

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 99



1st March 1942, evening

Jealousy of women.


In the eyes of a woman, the finest of dresses at once loses its charm—if she sees another woman wearing one like it. I’ve seen a woman suddenly leave the opera at the sight of a rival who had entered a box wearing the same dress as herself. “What cheek!” she said. “I’m going!”

In the pleasure a woman takes in rigging herself out, there is always an admixture of some trouble-making element, something treacherous—to awaken another woman’s jealousy by displaying something that the latter doesn’t possess. Women have the talent, which is unknown to us males, for giving a kiss to a woman-friend and at the same time piercing her heart with a well-sharpened stiletto. To wish to change women in this respect would be ingenuous: women are what they are. Let’s come to terms with their little weaknesses. And if women really only need satisfactions of that sort to keep them happy, let them not deprive themselves, by any means!

For my part, I prefer to see them thus occupied than devoting themselves to metaphysics. There’s no worse disaster than to see them grappling with ideas. In that respect, the point of disaster is reached by women painters, who attach no importance to beauty—when it’s a question of themselves! Other women are extremely careful of their appearance, but not beyond the moment when they’ve found a husband.

Social prejudices are in the process of disappearing. More and more, nature is reclaiming her rights. We’re moving in the proper direction. I’ve much more respect for the woman who has an illegitimate child than for an old maid. I’ve often been told of unmarried women who had children and brought these children up in a truly touching manner. It often happens amongst women servants, notably. The women who have no children finally go off their heads.

I often think of those women who people the convents—because they haven’t met the man with whom they would have wished to share their lives. With the exception of those who were promised to God by their parents, most of them, in fact, are women cheated by life. Human beings are made to suffer passively. Rare are the beings capable of coming to grips with existence.

Published in: on September 1, 2015 at 12:47 pm  Leave a Comment  

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 305 other followers