Race Bias - "Erocide"

We conclude this series on Race Bias against European-Americans on a more personal note, and with a second call to action. The actions which are most essential to our survival are only marginally "political."

Indeed, there is a titanic struggle unfolding in America today. It is a struggle of far more consequence than passage of the Contract with America, or the legislative defeat of the racial quotas that have been the primary subject of this series. It is the struggle in which the fate of Western Civilization will be determined.

It is the struggle to reproduce.

As we have discussed in previous posts, the advertisers in our mass media seek to encourage irrational purchases by appealing to status longings and sexual frustration. Prior to the invention of photography shortly before 1850, young boys and girls invariably formed their ideas of sexual attraction based upon people they actually saw in their neighborhoods.

However, with the advent of the photograph and the use of the photograph in advertising, it became possible to select rare and infrequent images of human beauty and present them to the public as the desired norm. Thus, sexual imprinting came to be based upon the result of a selection process that excluded all but a very tiny fraction of the population. The selection was done for commercial reasons. The scarcity of the image in real life increased its advertising value.

Politics in the 19th and 20th centuries has been largely a struggle over equality. However, few areas of life present more stark and visible inequalities than sexual attraction. Given equal amounts of exercise and training, most men can run the 100 meter dash at pretty much the same speed. The differences are minor.

But the aesthetic differences between individuals are absolutely enormous - orders of magnitude greater than the differences between them in strength, manual dexterity or intelligence. In other words, the ability of most people to make a contribution to the economy is far more equal than their ability to attract a mate (if the reasons for mating are exclusively based on aesthetics, and not practical necessity).

The problem, of course, is that every advertisement published by the press spreads images of women the like of which are seldom seen in real life in most towns and cities in America.

You can search the streets of Manhattan for days and never see a blonde beauty like Claudia Schiffer. In cities such as Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Columbus you can wander for days through shopping malls of European-American neighborhoods and never see a woman who comes anywhere close to looking like Claudia Schiffer or Cindy Crawford.

You do see small numbers of women who look like them throughout the Western United States, but it is still a minority.

The pathology created by these images are fairly predictable.

Males are frustrated. Inevitably, the mate you pick will represent a compromise. Nothing will match the images in the movies or on TV.

The women know they cannot measure up and so the temptation is not to try. They assume that men want what they see in the movies, so they might as well become male-hating liberationists, or stuff their faces and drop out of the sexual competition.

Organized ideological male-hating never existed until the advent of movies and television. Indeed, if you are seeking an explanation for the anti-white animus of our cultural elites (despite their Euro-American racial origins), sexual anger is an excellent starting point. Here is just one example from the April 22, 1994 edition of the Wall Street Journal, page A1, entitled "Mixed Signals":
Mixed Signals

* * *

Some white students make an effort to cross the racial divide. Lisa Todorovich, a senior from Milwaukee who is the first in her family to attend college, took an African American Studies class last semester on the writings of Toni Morrison. In a class equally split between blacks and whites, Ms. Todorovich, 22, found herself for the first time feeling self-conscious about her skin color.

When the class discussed Ms. Morrison's "The Bluest Eye," a book about how white ideals of beauty affect a black girl, Ms. Todorovich felt she, too, could relate. As a child, she felt unattractive because her looks didn't measure up to Shirley Temple's. "But I didn't open my mouth," she says, because she considered her childhood pain trivial compared with the experiences of black women in the class.

* * *
Given the blatant anti-white attitudes of the cultural elites who produce the icons of our popular culture, the most tempting analogy is chemotherapy. One suspects the poisons produced by the dream meisters, while harmful to all, are intended to destroy only the hated "white bread" of society. And, indeed, we find considerable evidence of this intent in Race Bias #40.

But, paradoxically, that isn't how it works in actual practice. In effect, the frustrated and angry dream meisters often end up eating their own young.

Exhibit One comes from Eldridge Cleaver's "Soul on Ice," page 19.
"This little game got good to me and I got good at it. I attacked all forms of piety, loyalty, and sentiment: marriage, love, God, patriotism, the Constitution, the founding fathers, law, concepts of right-wrong-good-evil, all forms of ritualized and conventional behavior. As I pranced about, club in hand, seeking new idols to smash, I encountered really for the first time in my life, with any seriousness, The Ogre, rising up before me in a mist. I discovered, with alarm, that The Ogre possessed a tremendous and dreadful power over me, and I didn't understand this power or why I was at its mercy. I tried to repudiate The Ogre, root it out of my heart as I had done God, Constitution, principles, morals, and values -- but The Ogre had its claws buried in the core of my being and refused to let go. I fought frantically to be free, but The Ogre only mocked me and sank its claws deeper into my soul. I knew then that I had found an important key, that if I conquered The Ogre and broke its power over me I would be free. But I also knew that it was a race against time and that if I did not win I would certainly be broken and destroyed. I, a black man, confronted The Ogre -- the white woman."
Continuing on page 23:
"From our discussion, which began that evening and has never yet ended, we went on to notice how thoroughly, as a matter of course, a black growing up in America is indoctrinated with the white race's standard of beauty. Not that the whites made a conscious, calculated effort to do this, we thought, but since they constituted the majority the whites brainwashed the blacks by the very processes the whites employed to indoctrinate themselves with their own group standards. It intensified my frustrations to know that I was indoctrinated to see the white woman as more beautiful and desirable than my own black woman. It drove me into books seeking light on the subject. In Richard Wright's Native Son, I found Bigger Thomas and a keen insight into the problem."
And finally, beginning on page 25:
"Somehow I arrived at the conclusion that, as a matter of principle, it was of paramount importance for me to have an antagonistic, ruthless attitude toward white women. The term outlaw appealed to me and at the time my parole date was drawing near, I considered myself to be mentally free - I was an "outlaw." I had stepped outside of the white man's law, which I repudiated with scorn and self-satisfaction. I became a law unto myself--my own legislature, my own supreme court, my own executive. At the moment I walked out of the prison gate, my feelings toward white women in general could be summed up in the following lines:


I love you Because you're white,
Not because you're charming
Or bright.
Your whiteness Is a silky thread
Snaking through my thoughts
In redhot patterns
Of lust and desire.

I hate you
Because you're white.
Your white meat
Is nightmare food.
White is
The skin of Evil.
You're my Moby Dick,
White Witch,
Symbol of the rope and hanging tree,
Of the burning cross.
Loving you thus
And hating you so,
My heart is torn in two.

"I became a rapist. To refine my technique and modus operandi, I started out by practicing on black girls in the ghetto--in the black ghetto where dark and vicious deeds appear not as aberrations or deviations from the norm, but as part of the sufficiency of the Evil of a day--and when I considered myself smooth enough, I crossed the tracks and sought out white prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically--"
Clearly, blacks suffer much more than whites from the images of European beauty that are cast in front of them by the advertisers.

Here is a second example from the perspective of a black female reporter for the New York Times:

Glamour Magazine October, 1995 p. 127

Light skin versus dark: A painful topic many blacks would rather not confront.

By Charisse Jones

I 'll never forget the day I was supposed to meet him. We had only spoken on the phone. But we got along so well, we couldn't wait to meet face-to-face. I took the bus from my high school to his for our blind date. While I nervously waited for him outside the school, one of his buddies came along, looked me over and remarked that I was going to he a problem, because his friend didn't like dating anybody darker than himself.

When my mystery man--who was not especially good-looking-- finally saw me, he took one look, uttered a hurried hello, then disappeared with his smirking friends. I had apparently been pronounced ugly on arrival and dismissed.

That happened nearly 15 years ago. I'm 30 now, and the hurt and humiliation have long since faded. But the memory still lingers, reinforced in later years by other situations in which my skin color was judged by other African Americans--for example, at a cocktail party or a nightclub where light-skinned black women got all the attention.

A racist encounter hurts badly. But it does not equal the pain of "colorism" -- being rejected by your own people because your skin is colored cocoa and not cream, ebony and not olive. On our scale of beauty, it is often the high yellows--in the lexicon of black America; those with light skin whose looks reap the most attention. Traditionally, if someone was described that way, there was no need to say that person was good-looking. It was a given that light was lovely. It was those of us with plain brown eyes and darker skin hues who had to prove ourselves.

I was 12, and in my first year of junior high school in San Francisco, when I discovered dark brown was not supposed to be beautiful. At that age, boys suddenly became important, and so did your looks. But by that time--the late 1970s--black kids no longer believed in that sixties mantra, "Black is beautiful." Light skin, green eyes and long, wavy hair were once again synonymous with beauty.

Colorism--and its subtext of self hatred--began during slavery on plantations where white masters often favored the lighter-skinned blacks, many of whom were their own children. But though it began with whites, black people have kept colorism alive. In the past, many black sororities, fraternities and other social organizations have been notorious for accepting only light-skinned members. Yes, some blacks have criticized their lighter-skinned peers. But most often in our history, a light complexion has been a passport to special treatment by both whites and blacks.
It is hard to understand how anyone reading these words could believe that the multi-racial empire was worth its costs.

The problem is that racial affronts and racial animus against whites arise from well springs of human interaction that have little or nothing to do with the actions of whites themselves.

What could any white person do to avoid the hurt of Charisse Jones? The answer is not much, except to partition the country into separate nations.

And absent that partitioning, people who's character and moral judgment have been formed by racial anger and sexual frustration gravitate naturally toward occupations in the media, where their anger makes it much easier for them to participate in the broad attack on middle american culture and its restraints.

Eldridge Cleaver sold over 2 million copies of Soul on Ice over 20 years ago. The cultural elites have been well aware of the misery integrationism inflicts for at least several decades.

But that was 20 years ago when we were only required to imprint upon the unattainable. Today, the giant consumer brands provide us with much more powerful toxins.

May 19, 1995 Wall Street Journal B5
Advertising/by Fara Warner

More Marketers Aiming Ads at Lesbians

The magazine advertisement for Tuaca liqueur seems pretty traditional at first glance: Three trendy young women gabbing over drinks.

Then you realize the women are flirting with one another. Another advertising taboo is being shattered as Hiram Walker & Sons the distributor of Tuaca, joins a small wave of national advertisers targeting the lesbian market.

"In the last two years, there's been a much broader discussion of lesbianism," says Richard Mukamal, vice president and group category director for Hiram Walker's liqueurs. "Lesbianism has made its way into network television. It's part of a young, hip, urban demographic."

The "outing" of the lesbian market is drawing big-name advertisers such as American Express, Stolichnaya vodka, Atlantic Records and Naya bottled water to such magazines as Deneuve, Lesbian News, Girlfriends and On Our Backs which all have national distribution. In addition, Tanqueray vodka and Pierre Cardin have signed on to sponsor the television show "Freestyles," hosted by Amanda Bearse, the openly lesbian actress from the "Married ... With Children" TV series, according to the marketing publication Next News. The paid program will run this summer on cable channel VH-1 with features that appeal to both gay women and gay men.

Most marketers use general ads that simply show their products, but a few marketers are being more direct with ads like Tuaca's and one for Atlantic Records showing two women holding hands at the beach.

For years, the lesbian market was overshadowed by the more vocal and more noticeable gay male audience, which a number of advertisers considered worth pursuing. Lesbians were stereotyped as less affluent than gay men and uninterested in traditional women's products such as cologne and cosmetics.

But now some marketers are taking another look, with brands like Unilever's Calvin Klein fragrances and Vivant skincare products considering advertising to the lesbian market. They are being swayed partly by new statistics breaking out lesbians from the overall gay population. Overlooked Opinions, a Chicago-based research firm that tracks the gay market, estimates that lesbians spend about $137 billion a year and have average household incomes of $42,755.

Beyond the numbers, lesbians have greater visibility, with lesbian relationships featured in television shows such as "Friends" and movies such as "Bar Girls" and "The Incredibly True Adventure of 2 Girls in Love." Also, more women are joining celebrities such as k.d. Lang, Melissa Etheridge and Martina Navratilova in openly expressing their lesbianism.

"The market, both gay and lesbian, is one of the most highly educated and fiercely loyal audiences we have," says Vicky Germaise, senior vice president of Atlantic Records, which runs ads in Out and Genre magazines promoting lesbian artists such as Melissa Ferrick.

In addition to media, such advertisers as Seagram and Hiram Walker also are trying to reach the lesbian market through special events such as the Dinah Shore Weekend, a gathering held every March in Palm Springs. Calif., that draws about 20,000 women. The event occurs at the same time as the Nabisco-Dinah Shore golf tournament, but isn't connected to the Ladies Professional Golf Association tournament.

* * *"
And as the above excerpt makes clear, the driving force behind production of these toxins is money.

And indeed, there are hints in the above quotes from the market research types that the most educated and the highest income groups are the most severely impacted by the toxins.

Reprinted from Race Bias #40, and from page 4 of the January 20, 1995 edition of the Jerusalem Post, is a more normal expression of despair in the war to reproduce. Indeed, it is clear that the dream meisters of Beverly Hills are eating their young:
A friend who lives in her own condo on the Upper West Side of Manhattan calls me. She's 39, single, a partner in a Big Eight accounting firm and inexplicitly identified as a traditional Jew. She's called to say good-bye.

It is the old story. She is quitting New York, tired of looking for a husband, tired of being rejected by persnickety Jewish men. Maybe it has something to do with their mothers or with their fathers or with their cousins from France, my friend speculates, laughing. Who cares. I'm outta here, she says. It's 1995. She has to do something radical. She is moving to India.

The idea of moving to a Third World country - to a place she says where men are still men and where a white woman who can buy her own elephant for transportation is prized - is not new. Another SJF from Manhattan who moved to India several years ago became folklore. In a small Jewish congregation in Bombay, she met her British-Jewish Hugh Grant. Today they are married and living in London. After 15 years of chasing Jewish men, my friend says her tired flesh wants a little adulation, a little lust, a little naches from having been born female. And she wants clamorous attention from thousands of men. A Jewish Benazir Bhutto, that's what she wants. So when her company decided to transfer the current managing partner in Bombay, she, to her parents' dismay, volunteered for the position.

Jewish men want what's intensely familiar to them - Eastern European food, intelligent female conversation - and what's intensely alien: extreme height, a degree of imagined carnality. (SJFs in Tel Aviv report men there favor Dutch converts for wives.)

The divorced men, according to my friend, are slightly different. They act like they've just made a jailbreak. They want a whole different model, preferably waitresses from Minnesota, science teachers from Duluth, basically any female whose never heard of Loehmann's, decorators or lawyers. They want women who, when they hear they have to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, say, "Great!"

As the sun sets over the 20th century, one of the biggest jokes, according to my friend, is that Jewish men aren't anxious to marry her: a pert, admittedly aggressive, self-made Jewish woman. She blames traditional feminists whom, she believes, devalued female sexuality without concerning themselves with cultural trespass. Traditional Jewish women, she says, who really believed they could "have it all" are paying the price. Jewish men can't handle so much firepower. They are seeking their white bread and mayonnaise elsewhere. According to my friend, it's not that Jewish men reject strong women, they just don't like the artifice unmasked. They are still earnest, programmed to work hard for home and hearth but not for peers. Only for pale, lanky types who say "great" every half-hour.
The above excerpt is consistent with the statistics. College educated black women with advanced degrees have the lowest birthrate in the nation. Second lowest is Jewish women. In both cases, they are far below replacement levels.

As Lipsett and Raab state in "Jews and the New American Scene," page 46:
The Jewish birthrate is low and declining. The completed fertility rate for Jewish women age 45-49 is 20 percent below that of Jewish women of the same age 20 years ago, almost 20 percent below that of all American white women, and 10 percent less than the level needed for population replacement.
The irony of the article on lesbian advertising is that Edgar Bronfman, chairman emeritus of Seagrams, marketer to lesbians and purveyor of the message that the lezzie lifestyle is hip, is the head of the American Jewish Committee, and like Lipset and Raab, publicly bemoans the high intermarriage rates and low birthrates of American Jews.

Well, it is Bronfman who produces the toxic waste that, to a large measure, drives young Jewish women to leave the country, and young Jewish men to seek out the genotype of the models in his ads.

And, of course, Edgar Bronfman Jr., was busy chasing every shiksa skirt in New York City 25 years ago. Now Edgar Jr. has caused Seagrams to buy 80% of MCA so that he can get into the movie business and begin producing toxic waste on a much grander scale.

Daddy has much to atone for. Sonny doesn't care.

As if to anticipate the family's new onslaught, the elder Bronfman's antidote to Seagram's cultural effluent is more "Jewish education," by which he means the segregation of young Jews so that they can imprint on one another, and to make explicit the message that the cultural toxic waste flowing from Seagrams and others is not meant for Jews. Jews are supposed to be smart enough to resist the stuff. Intermarriage is for goyim, dummies!

Reality presents much more compelling arguments for racial separation than slogans. And indeed, in the United States, minorities suffer at the hands of the integrationist state. The reason they suffer is that the integrationist state is attempting to do something that simply cannot be done.

When several races are placed in a single country they compete. That competition does not go away. Our social sciences tend to focus solely on legal relationships (like slavery) or economic relationships (such as relative income levels). But the truth is that the social sciences conceal the most significant form of competition - sexual selection. Legislation cannot stop it or the hurt it engenders. In fact, the well-springs of racial feeling run so deep that they can never be eradicated. It is foolish to try.

In the struggle for sexual survival, educated Blacks and Jews are losing in the United States. But in all honesty, if Euro- Americans are experiencing the "thrill of victory" in this area, I would hate to experience "the agony of defeat." As with so many aspects of life in the Multi-Racial Empire, we are all losing, it is just that European-Americans are losing at a less rapid rate in this one particular arena.

If this seems paradoxical, I would suggest that it is one more illustration of the powerful self-destructive impulse that the Multi-racial empire stirs up in minorities. (See Yggdrasil's Lesson #9.) The need to attack Euro-Americans is so overpowering that the attackers pay scant attention to the casualties from within their own ranks.

From the economic perspective of the purveyors of our popular culture, the ideal would be for all of us to become totally self- absorbed, have no children, spend all of our income on impulse and status related purchases, and then die off in a single generation, to be replaced entirely by new immigrants.

Our advertisers are equal opportunity exterminationists. They could care less who gets destroyed by their wares. They bestow quotas on minorities in the hope that minorities will think the system fair and refrain from direct challenges to the great herds of freeway commuting Euro-Americans. If the Euro-American middle class were to feel racially threatened, they might become distracted from the urgent business of getting and spending. Heaven forfend!

And as luck would have it, the agony of Erocide produces many talented volunteers willing to attack the Euro-American middle class and mold their moral sentiments in such a way that any defensive racial response becomes impossible. After all, we cannot let racial identity keep us from shopping till we drop!

In several earlier posts, I have argued with Milton Kleim that if by "National Socialism" he means government control of the economy, 1930's style National Socialism makes no sense for Euro- America in its present circumstance. Economic freedom has been the primary offensive weapon of Western Civilization. Shackling our economic power with the dead hand of bureaucracy is a prescription for our collective defeat.

If, on the other hand, "National Socialism" means some form of public dampening of the cultural toxins that advertisers spread to encourage the self-absorbed lifestyles that lead to evolutionary failure, then Milton Kleim seems to have a valid point.

Even if the sphere of activity of such a government were confined to public exposure of the toxic waste, as opposed to its outright repression, such a government would need a will and a ferocity to resist the organized special interests and their frustrated, angry minions that could only be described as "heroic." But let me suggest that government power gives us no magic bullet for Euro-American survival. The truth is that Euro-American survival depends upon our behavior as individuals and as part of a group. At this point, it has very little to do with who is elected to the next Congress.

In Yggdrasil's lesson 10, I asked that all of you cut your cable TV subscription.

We must minimize our exposure to advertising and its media. As outlined earlier in this post, advertising has the primary purpose of making us unhappy with our lot and leading us to believe that an irrational purchase might help. One of its primary tools is sexual frustration. It causes us to imprint upon largely unattainable images.

Second, advertising is the vehicle that brings us cultural messages designed to weaken our motivation to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve our own kind. After all, why would one wish to go through all the work of having children when they will just be "white bread" or "wimpy white guys" or "barbie and ken dolls" or one of any number of other epithets served up to us in word and picture by the dream meisters of Beverly Hills.

We are all much better off if our kids learn to interact with real people rather than watching TV all the time.

Further, once several million of us cut off the cable, it creates opportunities for entrepreneurs to create new media and a new cultural message to communicate to us.

But more important, by isolating ourselves from the commercial media, we can begin to overcome the many pathologies that limit us in our everyday lives.

Most relevant for you college students are those cultural pathologies that make finding a mate much more difficult than it should be. Let's list a few examples:

Young men (and women) often select mates for "status" reasons rather than on how well they get along together. Young men and women carry around images and ideals of the perfect mate (crafted in large part by the media) that are often destructive.

First, high status females are hard to find. Women with IQs above 130 constitute only 2% of the female population. If you restrict yourself to that group, you will have very few examples to pick from and you are likely to end up with a compromise that requires more than the normal amount of endurance to live with.

Second, females with IQs above 130 mature much more slowly than the general population. Thus, they tend to have greater hangups about their physical attractiveness. They are much more susceptible to feminist ideology as a universalized and institutionalized excuse for their own self-imposed sexual failures.

Third are the crippling effects of prosperity. Most high status females spend 10 to 12 years perfecting the manipulative behaviors that enable them to avoid doing the dishes and cleaning their rooms. There are limits to how much nagging mom is willing to do; and dad will not resort to violence or severe economic coercion. The bottom line is that the young princesses have become expert in turning mom and dad into maid service.

And of course, having children means doing lots of dishes and other lowly chores. It may seem shocking, but the abysmally low birthrate of college educated women has almost nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with avoiding maid service. After training for 12 years to handle mom and dad, don't be surprised if she has the same thing in mind for you.

This deep and irrational status aversion to doing chores not only has personal consequences (low birthrates) but has enormous secondary economic and political consequences as well. It means that much of the economic value of household tasks is moved from the untaxed self-help economy to the transaction economy where it yields tax revenue that strengthens our oppressive government. To avoid untaxed household work, the career woman gets a job and gives up 40% of her wage in taxes just to spend the remainder to buy fast food every night (rewarding those high advertising budgets) and to hire day care and maid service, which, in turn generates more tax revenue.

From the perspective of a successful male, eating pizza and McDonalds hamburgers every night (it is surprisingly expensive) hardly seems like much of a reward for a successful business career.

The second career is not the problem. Rather, it is the inevitable irrational spending and the irrationality of the lifestyle that follows.

For you young Lotharios who want to take on the challenge of having a family with the "high status" female college graduate, the Ole Ygg says "go for it!" Just don't allow yourself to be surprised at the agenda you may face the day after the wedding if you fail to work these issues out in advance. If her agenda is the same as the agenda of the society around her, then it ain't likely to have anything to do with personal sacrifice or the survival of the Euro-American race.

If the Ole Ygg has one piece of advice, it is to ignore your own status perceptions and concentrate on finding a mate who delights your aesthetic senses. If she is smart enough to communicate well with you, she is smart enough to have your children.

The truth is that our status yearnings have been thoroughly manipulated by the media in ways that make it more and more difficult for Euro-Americans to get along and reproduce. These status images have become unreliable. Shed them.

For all the media talk about sexual freedom and liberation, our popular culture makes an unmistakable statement. The status of a woman can be measured by how often she says "no." The women with the greatest status are the ones who have sex the least often and with the fewest partners.

The image applies across the board from Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton to the young starlets on the TV series 90210.

I will never forget the stunning episode of 90210 in which Shannon Doherty's character (Brenda) loses her virginity to Luke Perry's character (Dillon) the night of the prom. The day after the big event, Doherty's character breaks off the relationship complaining that she didn't know whether she enjoyed it. I watched this episode in amazement, wondering what sort of extra bonus they had to pay Luke Perry to play along with this insult to his masculinity and to pretend that he wanted the ice princess back. It was impossible to suspend my disbelief.

In truth, the images produced by the mass media are profoundly hostile to heterosexual sex. In Hollywood, frigidity among heterosexual females is the expected norm. Sexual failure is the expected norm. It is no accident that the real heroine of 90210 was the producer's daughter, Tori Spelling, who managed to say "no" to everyone in every episode. She never made anyone happy!

These messages have an effect.

They give broad license to the status ranking among the herds of suburban PTA moms. Being 40 pounds overweight is the irrefutable symbol of arrival at the exhaulted position of having to please no one. Pity the poor divorced woman who has to lose 30 pounds to find a new husband, or the slender model types who are so insecure about their place in society that they must maintain their sexual prowess and skills. Low status work indeed!

In truth folks, all human societies seek to control reproduction of their members. Our modern American society is no exception.

What is surprising is that Hollywood had so little difficulty wresting control from the priesthood. But once the priesthood was replaced, it was no surprise that Hollywood satisfied the market demand for sexual expression with fare that avoids any suggestion of a joyous link between sex, rewarding relationships and procreation. And indeed, the images it sells are uniformly of sexual frustration and failure.

The Ole Ygg is always bemused by the protests against pornography orchestrated by the religious right. If you have a teenage boy, you had better watch a few of these films, because your teenage son certainly will. The stuff is all over the place. And when you do watch a few of these movies, it becomes obvious that the sexual message is exactly the same as the sexual message of 90210. It is only the explicit acrobatics that are different. The message of the porn flicks is that even women who habitually say "yes" are at best frigid, but more likely lesbians, and that men are better off withdrawing from it all and masturbating.

Seldom ever do porn movies portray normal heterosexual intercourse that ends in a happy conclusion for both parties.

It is just more of the same toxic waste with the same message.

I see no reason to treat pornography more harshly than Network television. The messages are indistinguishable.

No matter what your station in life, whether it is a teenager trying to build your own sexual identity, a young adult trying to find a mate, or an older adult trying to raise children, you face a formidable challenge.

The first step in coping with that challenge is to stop the flow of poison into your home. Cut the cable TV subscription. Then, seek out sources of culture that assist in our collective survival.

Gents, if you have daughters, you are going to have to do the dishes with them occasionally, and convey the message that household chores are meaningful activities that you care about doing right. More than mere convenience is at stake here.

The typical middle class father will push his daughter to become "independent" and a "career woman" so that he will not have to support her. Thus, the real, unspoken message to middle class girls is that no young male is likely to want to support her for the value of her companionship. Children listen to deeds, not words, and the real message that the typical middle class male communicates to his daughter is that no young man can be trusted to want her for any considerable period of time.

As counter-intuitive as this might be for a father, you are going to have to make clear to your daughters that you admire and respect the women that have the most sex (and the most offspring) and not those that have the least. This principle applies whether you raise your family in the Christian tradition of glorifying sex by saving it for marriage, or (most likely by default rather than by design) in a more instinctive and pagan tradition in which sex is glorified for its power to unify and continue the tribe.

To your sons, you are going to have to make clear the enlightened self-interest motivating the chivalry of Gismond in Robert Browning's classic poem, "Count Gismond."

These issues are not new.

Gentlemen, rebellion against our tormentors may come in time. But first we must strengthen ourselves and reconstruct our personal and cultural defenses.

We have not arrived at this pass through conquest, but through our own divisions and our own weakness.


Back to Main Page

(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.