Sunday, February 22, 2009

Why It’s Not Easy to Save the North

Ypp, a Russian reader and occasional commenter, was inspired by Srdja Trifkovic’s article “The North Worth Saving” to write the following essay for Gates of Vienna.

Why It’s Not Easy to Save the North
by Ypp

Until recently, I used to be one of the most devoted proponents of the idea of saving the West — or better, say “the North” — the region populated by whites. It seemed to me strange that such an obvious idea does not work well. However, recently I started to understand some not-so-obvious but significant difficulties in the implementation of this idea.

We all care about civilization. Our civilization probably began about 5,000 years ago, and it was only during the last 1,000 years, for known historical reasons, that its center moved to the North. Before that it had mainly developed in the Mediterranean region. That problem is, however, more theoretical than practical. Practically speaking, civilization is nowadays concentrated mostly in the North, and saving the North is almost identical to saving civilization.

The second problem is more practical. I would like to start with an example, which seemingly has nothing to do with our topic: prostitution.
- - - - - - - - -
Most people agree that prostitution is a social evil and it should be fought. However, if you look attentively at the prostitution fighters, you will find that the most fierce of them overreach to some extent. You will notice that they hate not only prostitution, but sex as such. For them, prostitution is only an excuse and a euphemism for fighting against sex.

In the USSR we all knew an infamous phrase of one educator: “There is no sex in our country.” But sex is a necessary part of life, something of the highest importance for reproduction and continuation of life. No country can survive without sex. Clearly, a country without sex could not last long, and USSR collapsed. Now, prostitution is on the rise in Russia, but it’s better to live with prostitution than to die out.

Of course, prostitution is not the same as sex. In the ideal world they should be separated. However in practice, there are too many people who use prostitution only as an excuse for attacking normal relationships.

Now return to the North and the whites. Sex is a ‘hot’ event, you can’t do it coldly. But the North is cold. Secondly, dark skin is considered by many as sexually stimulating. In Russia, we say “African passion”.

As wrong as they are, those are the cultural stereotypes, which cannot be easily overcome. And here is the problem: among fighters for the North and for the whites, there are too many fighters against sex.

They are hard to recognize. For example Hitler positioned himself as a fighter for whites. He had no problem, however, dealing with the Arabs or the Japanese. And he caused as many white deaths as anybody in history. He and most of Nazi leadership are also known to have had some complications in their sexual relations.

So if we learn anything from the collapse of the USSR and the Third Reich, it is that no society can survive if it is ruled by sex-haters. And the problem is that there are too many of them wearing the masks of fighters for the North and for whites.

Until we can clearly separate from such people, and separate cold Northern weather from the sexual meaning of the word “cold”, saving the North will be associated in public opinion with sexual perversions. And, if so, it will hardly become popular.


Inalienable Rights said...

With logic like that, we're screwed.

X said...

I understand the part about sex-haters. Leftists are puritans at heart, not happy unless everyone else is miserable.
The other parts I'm not so certain about but I can't form a coherent argument that doesn't sound picky and snooty, so... I'll just leave it for now.

Unknown said...

There is always this nice notion of "taking the lessons of history". ALL recent baby booms were amongst people you would consider "sex haters".

And the "sex-loving" people have a birthrate per woman of just barely over 1, sometimes not even that. No society can survive with a birthrate of below 2.1 per woman.

Most "sex-hating" (by your definition : not openly indulging in promiscuous sex) cultures, by contrast have birthrates that sometimes exceed 8 children per woman.

It seems that your assertions are not just wrong, but actually the very opposite of the correct fact. I will not pretend to know why or how this fact came to be, but "sex-haters" have in fact a lot more children than "sex-lovers" and are in fact much better for the existence of a country.

Oh and lefties are no sex-haters. Yes they use sex to create misery, a fact many not-quite-16-anymore women in every major European city can attest to.

Sex doesn't matter. Raising children matters. Sex is but a tiny, tiny part of that. It's potentially one evening in a work that lasts at least 20 years. It's not that night that's important, but the 19 years and 364 other days which matter a lot more.

In other words, fidelity is what matters. Even if that results in diminishing the amounts of sex by a factor of thousand or even more.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Funny - I am engaging with some debate with these sex-haters (Socialists, Social Democrats) in the newspapers, and thought it largely unrelated to larger issues. Looks like it is related, after all.

Nice lines of thinking.

Ypp said...

2 Inalienable Rights
I think, we are screwed now. I hope this logic may help to fix it.

2 tomcpp
I think I pointed clearly that I am against prostitution. When I said 'sex', I also meant reproduction. It is necessary to fight for decent living, but there are some fragile and important parts of life, which we must not damage.

2 Henric R Clausen
I think we must give women credit for their sexual and reproduction power. But making them politically equal is in fact a cunning attempt to kill their sexuality.

Czechmade said...

Beware, those are social sexists, socialist sexists.

They channelize their sexual energy into our societies...and we suffer.

Solo said...

I'm from Russia too, but I disagree on a couple of major premises. 1) It is not lack of "sex" that killed the USSR. Underneath the official admittance there was entire array of underground escort rings, prostitution, photocopied erotic photos, etc, you name it. Sex life was normal, if I may even say, romantic and poetic but the family unit was also strong and reproduction numbers were healthy. I knew not that many families with 1 child, and knew no family with no kids by choice. It would have been a tradegy and considered a failure of a marriage in such a case 2) What ruins (in sexual contest) the western world as we speak is not the "lack of sex" per se. The sex as a procreation mechanism is misapplied. Just look at the obsession with anal sex. I think it was "borrowed" from gays and quickly became an obsession with metrosexuals - people waste their semen and potential over having it gay-like but still with women. Just my two cents.

Solo said...

Oh, and I've never heard "african passion" expression. There are other ones, more common "italian passion" and "brazilian passion".

Henrik R Clausen said...

Ypp, the leader of my political party, Pia Kjærsgaard, is doing absolutely fine. Much better than the other women in charge of Danish political parties, in fact.

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

Coincidentally the leftists has the sex hateing in common with their allies the muslims.

Whiskey said...

I don't think this is particularly true. The Left is generally made up of a debauched Gentry which preaches libertinism for them, and deprivation for everyone else.

For example, Roman Polanski, who drugged and sexually assaulted a 13 year old, is considered a hero. Worthy of honors by all the Gentry.

Meanwhile, for a working class white guy to find a woman attractive is a case for the vapors.

In both cases what is important is the status and social standing of the man, not the act.

MauserMedic said...

That was.......odd.

Marian - CZ said...

I have some objections regarding the "sex vs. fertility" theme.

The readers of Gates of Vienna are concentrated on Europe and the Muslim world. But what about a broader picture?

Some of the areas with the lowest fertility on Earth are actually in East Asia. Fertility rate of Japan or HongKong is miserable. Taiwan. South Korea. Singapore.

Note that all these countries are fiercely nationalistic and proud about their ancient cultures. Cultural Marxism is alien to them, at least in the measure typical for the West.

Then examine some interesting local regions of otherwise fertile countries. For example, the fertility rate of the IT experts in Bangalore, India, closely resembles their counterparts in developed countries.

Finally, the Muslim fertility in a lot of Muslim countries has gone rapidly downhill. Iran has lower fertility than France or the USA. Gulf states like Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, have reduced their fertility by 0.5 - 1 child per family in just the last 8 years - a stunning development. The same works for Jordan or even Morocco.

The theory says that people reduce their families when the societies shift from agricultural ones to knowledge-based economies. In agriculture, every child is an immediate economic asset. In knowledge-based economy, it takes 25 years for it to have a college degree and start a typical job.

Huge difference, even for Muslims.

Of course, there are interesting outliers, like the Amish or Haredim or (it seems) the Saudis.

Armance said...

I fail to see the point of this article. Our societies are not run by sex-haters. They are led by White European-haters. The third worlders outnumber the Europeans because our governments punish the hard working through high taxes and numberless regulations, while the lazy and irresponsible are gratified with welfare money and affirmative action. The Western countries have become paradises for the irresponsible. No wonder they feel real motivations for having children.

Ypp said...

Too many people use "responsibility" as a justification for not having children.

It depends to whom you answer: if you answer to particular humans, it is always better not to have children, because they will probably suffer and surely die. But if you answer to you race, or god, than you must have children.